Wholey v. Sears Roebuck6/19/2002
Alaska Drilling, Inc., 768 P.2d 1123, 1130 (Alaska 1989); Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Mem'l Hosp., 710 P.2d 1025, 1033 (Ariz. 1985); Sterling Drug, Inc. v. Oxford, 743 S.W.2d 380, 385 (Ark. 1988); Tameny v. Atl. Richfield Co., 610 P.2d 1330, 1333 (Cal. 1980)(citing Petermann v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters 344 P.2d 25 (Cal. 1959)); Sheets v. Teddy's Frosted Foods, Inc., 427 A.2d 385, 387 (Conn. 1980); Parnar v. Americana Hotels, Inc., 652 P.2d 625, 631 (Haw. 1982); Palmateer v. Int'l Harvester Co., 421 N.E.2d 876, 878-79 (Ill. 1981); Frampton v. Central Indiana Gas Co., 297 N.E.2d 425, 428 (Ind. 1973); Coleman v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 752 P.2d 645, 647 (Kan. 1988); Firestone Textile Co. v. Meadows, 666 S.W.2d 730, 732 (Ky. 1983); Luethans v. Washington Univ., 894 S.W.2d 169, 171 n.2 (Mo.1995)(discussing Boyle v. Vista Eyewear, Inc., 700 S.W.2d 859, 877 (Mo. Ct. App. 1985)); Keneally v. Orgain, 606 P.2d 127, 129-30 (Mont. 1980); Ambroz v. Cornhusker Square Ltd., 416 N.W.2d 510, 514-15 (Neb. 1987); Hansen v. Harrah's, 675 P.2d 394, 396-97 (Nev. 1984); Howard v. Dorr Woolen Co., 414 A.2d 1273, 1274 (N.H. 1980)(citing Monge v. Beebe Rubber Co., 316 A.2d 549, 551 (N.H. 1974)); Chavez v. Manville Products Corp., 777 P.2d 371, 375 (N.M. 1989); Coman v. Thomas Mfg. Co., Inc., 381 S.E.2d 445, 447 (N.C. 1989); Krein v. Marian Manor Nursing Home, 415 N.W.2d 793, 794-95 (N.D. 1987); Burk v. K-Mart Corp., 770 P.2d 24, 28 (Okla. 1989); Delaney v. Taco Time Int'l, Inc., 681 P.2d 114, 117 (Or. 1984)(citing Nees v. Hocks, 536 P.2d 512 (Or. 1975) and Brown v. Transcon Lines, 588 P.2d 1087 (Or. 1978)); Geary v. United States Steel Corp., 319 A.2d 174, 180 (Pa. 1974); Ludwick v. This Minute of Carolina, Inc., 337 S.E.2d 213, 216 (S.C. 1985); Johnson v. Kreiser's, Inc., 433 N.W.2d 225, 227 (S.D. 1988); Bowman v. State Bank of Keysville, 331 S.E.2d 797, 801 (Va. 1985); Payne v. Rozendaal, 520 A.2d 586, 589-90 (Vt. 1986); Thompson v. St. Regis Paper Co., 685 P.2d 1081, 1089 (Wash. 1984); Harless v. First Nat'l Bank in Fairmont, 246 S.E.2d 270, 275 (W. Va. 1978); Brockmeyer v. Dun & Bradstreet, 335 N.W.2d 834, 840 (Wis. 1983); Griess v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. of Delaware, 776 P.2d 752, 754 (Wyo. 1989).
Thus, to establish wrongful discharge, the employee must be discharged, the basis for the employee's discharge must violate some clear mandate of public policy, and there must be a nexus between the employee's conduct and the employer's decision to fire the employee. See Wholey, 139 Md. App. at 649, 779 A.2d at 412 (quoting Shapiro v. Massengill, 105 Md. App.743, 764, 661 A.2d 202, 213 (1995)). That the petitioner was discharged and that the basis for the petitioner's discharge was his investigation of the store manager and subsequent reporting to his supervisors have been clearly established. Our task is to consider whether a clear mandate of public policy exists in Maryland which would prohibit the discharge of an at-will employee for his investigation of suspected criminal activity of a co-worker and reporting to his supervisors thereof. In so considering, we will attempt to clarify the somewhat obscure concept of "public policy" and the considerations which we believe compel or spurn the adoption of such a mandate.
B. Public Policy Exception
To be certain, our common law is not static; it may be modified by judicial decision when changing circumstances compel courts to "renovate" outdated law and policy. See Felder v. Butler, 292 Md. 174, 182-83, 438 A.2d 494, 499 (1981); Adler, 291 Md. at 42-43 432 A.2d at 471 (recognizing tort of abusive or wrongful discharge); Condore v. Prince George's Co., 289 Md. 516, 530-31, 425 A.2d 1011, 1018 (1981)(asserting that the common law doctrine of necessaries is subj
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Maryland Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|