Wholey v. Sears Roebuck6/19/2002
were lawful and in accordance with the stated procedures set forth by [Sears].
A jury returned a verdict in favor of petitioner against the respondent, Sears, on the wrongful discharge count. The jury returned verdicts in favor of Sears on the defamation count and in favor of Eiseman on both the defamation and wrongful discharge counts. Sears appealed the judgment on the wrongful discharge count to the Court of Special Appeals.
The Court of Special Appeals reversed the judgment of the Circuit Court, holding that "no clear mandate of public policy was implicated in Sears's termination of [the petitioner's] employment, as a matter of law." See 139 Md. App. 642, 660, 779 A.2d 408, 419 (2001).
The petitioner sought, and we granted, a writ of certiorari to consider whether there exists a clear public policy mandate in Maryland with respect to the investigation and reporting of criminal activity such that terminating an at-will employee for his/her involvement in investigating the possible criminal activity of another employee constitutes a wrongful discharge. See Wholey v. Sears Roebuck, 367 Md 88, 785 A.2d 1292 (2001)
II. Discussion
The pivotal issue in this case is whether a clear mandate of public policy favoring the investigation and reporting of suspected criminal activity exists in Maryland such that the termination of an at-will employee who acted congruent with this public policy is wrongful. Whether the petitioner may maintain a cause of action against Sears is dependent upon favorable resolution of this issue, and further, that he meets the requirements to sustain this cause of action, should one be adopted. The viability of a legal cause of action is clearly a question of law which, as with all questions of law, this Court shall review de novo. See Register of Wills for Balt. County v. Arrowsmith, 365 Md. 237, 249, 778 A.2d 364, 371 (2001) (" s is consistent with our review for all questions of law, we review the order and judgment de novo."); Watson v. Peoples Security Life Ins. Co., 322 Md. 467, 478, 588 A.2d 760, 765 (1991)(stating that "it is for the court to determine, on any state of facts generated by the evidence, whether the relevant public policy considerations constitute the [requisite]`clear mandate'" of public policy); see also Stronsinzky v. School District, 614 N.W.2d 443, 448 (Wis. 2000)(stating that "whether a plaintiff identifies a public policy is a question of law to be decided by the court").
A. The Tort of Wrongful Discharge
An at-will employee, such as the petitioner, has an employment contract of infinite duration which is terminable for any reason by either party. See Suburban Hosp., Inc. v. Dwiggins, 324 Md. 294, 303, 596 A.2d 1069, 1073 (1991); Adler v. American Standard Corp., 291 Md. 31, 35, 432 A.2d 464, 467(1981). The tort of wrongful discharge is one exception to the well-established principle that an at-will employee may be discharged by his employer for any reason, or no reason at all. See Adler, 291 Md. at 35, 432 A.2d at 467. See also Ewing v. Koppers Co., Inc., 312 Md. 45, 49, 537 A.2d 1173, 1174 (1988) (holding that the tort of wrongful discharge is also available to contractual employees). When this Court recognized the wrongful discharge tort in Adler, 291 Md. at 36-37, 432 A.2d at 467, we joined the growing number of states which have adopted a "public policy exception" to the common notion of at-will employment by holding, specifically, that an employee who has been "discharged in a manner that contravenes public policy" may "maintain a cause of action for abusive or wrongful discharge against his former employer." 291 Md. at 35-36, 432 A.2d at 467. See, e.g., Luedtke v. Nabors
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Maryland Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|