Introduction I. History of the Employment-At-Will Doctrine II. Evolution of the Public Policy Exception to the Employee-At-Will Doctrine A. Texas B. Utah C. Ohio D. New Jersey III. New York State Courts' Lack of Progress Adopting a Public Policy Exception to the Employee-At-Will Doctrine IV. A Review of the Specific Tests Used by other Jurisdictions in an Effort to Create a Recommendation for New York Conclusion
Introduction II. Work-Family Conflict In The Changing Workforce Demographic A. Historical Overview of the Changing Workforce: Filling the Gaps B. Workforce Statistical Analysis III. Current Avenues Of Relief From The Work-Family Conflict A. The FMLA and its Work-Family Shortcomings B. Title VII and its Work-Family Shortcomings IV. The Employment At Will Doctrine And Its Current Exceptions A. Contract-Based Exceptions to the Employment At Will Doctrine B. State Public Policy Exceptions to the Employment At Will Doctrine V. A New Proposal: Fitting A Work-Family Exception Into The Scheme A. Incorporating a Civic Duty Exception B. Incorporating an Exception for Exercising the Statutory Right to be a Parent C. Creating a New Comprehensive Exception 1. The Public Poli...
EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS – summary judgment; extension pursuant to Civ.R. 56(F); breach of employment contract; at-will employment doctrine and exceptions thereto; employment for a specific duration; contractual reimbursement; agency relationship; statute of frauds; fraudulent misrepresentation; falsifying financial statements; investing corporate funds; elements of conversion.
Missouri has long been an employment-at-will state. As such, an employee-at-will could be discharged for good reason, bad reason or no reason at all. In 1985, the Missouri Court of Appeals recognized a "narrow" exception to the at-will employment doctrine. Specifically, an employee-at-will could not be discharged (1) for refusing to violate the law or any well-established and clearly mandated public policy or (2) for reporting to superiors or public authorities serious misconduct that violates the law or public policy.
The employment at-will doctrine withstood another challenge. Last week on May 8, the New York Court of Appeals affirmed the First Department and rendered a decision refusing to create an employment at-will exception for a corporate compliance officer who complained of security trade irregularities to the security firm's principal, Sullivan v. Harnisch, 2012 NY Lexis 984, 2012 NY Slip Op 3574 (May 8). In so ruling, the Court of Appeals reaffirmed its 1983 holding in Murphy v. American Home Products Corp. (58 NY2d 293) that New York does not recognize a claim for wrongful discharge of an at-will employee, Sullivan, at p. 1.
A man, who was fired after he accused his employers of tax fraud, was not a whistle-blower, the Missouri Court of Appeals has held. The Western District agreed with the trial court that reporting a suspicion of wrongdoing to the alleged wrongdoers is not whistle blowing within the public policy exception to Missouri's employment- at-will doctrine.
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS: The trial court properly granted summary judgment to the defendant on the plaintiffs wrongful-termination claim: the credit fraud allegedly committed by the defendant was not contrary to a clear public policy sufficient to warrant preclusion of the at-will employment doctrine.
Dunn vs. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co., 170 S.W.3d 1, Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, No. ED83240, handed down April 12, 2005. This case held that an at-will employee could state a cause of action for wrongful discharge under the public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine if the employee was terminated for reporting or objecting to conduct by the employer that the employee reasonably believed would have violated federal securities law. Crow vs. Kansas City Power & Light Co., 174 S.W.3d 523, Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, No. WD64229, handed down July 5, 2005. While a possessor of land may, under certain conditions, be subject to liability for injuries suffered by an invitee due to a condition on the land, the possessor's actions do not fall below t...
On Dec. 5, The Oregon Court of Appeals ruled in Lamson v. Crater Lake Motors Inc. that internal complaints unrelated to safety don't constitute "wrongful discharge" under Oregon law, clarifying the law on wrongful discharge and further cementing the "at-will" employment doctrine in Oregon. In Lamson, the plaintiff claimed his discharge from employment fell under a "wrongful discharge" exception to the "at-will" employment doctrine. Lamson claimed he was fired for complaining about the methods a third party used in a car sale that he didn't think complied with company policy or consumer protection laws. Lamson complained after the first sale and refused to attend a subsequent one. His employer addressed the sales methods with the third party, directed Lamson to attend the second sale and...
ver las páginas en versión mobile | web
ver las páginas en versión mobile | web
© Copyright 2012, vLex. All Rights Reserved.
Contents in vLex United States
Explore vLex
For Professionals
For Partners
Company
Other interesting searches:
Results Tuesday | Shaikh Zaid | Light Armoured Vehicles | Dennis Johnson | proprietress | movilidad social sociologia | definición conflictos | droits de douane europe | Sentencia incongruente | propensione marginale alla spesa
