Title: At-Will Employees Get Enhanced Protection from Termination
Abstract: Writing in January issue of newsletter of Employment Law Committee, Jill Gradwohl Schroeder describes broadening of rights of at-will employees who act as whistle-blowers: In what was labeled in a Chicago Tribune article as a decisive victory for whistle-blowers, U.S. Supreme Court decided in Haddle v. Garrison, 119 S.Ct. 489 (1998), that an at-will employee may be when employee is dismissed after agreeing to testify against employer in legal The case provided Court with opportunity to resolve conflicting opinions from 11th, First and Ninth Circuits regarding whether termination of employment is independently sufficient evidence to support a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. 1985(2). Third-party interference In a unanimous decision, Chief Justice Rehnquist held that the sort of harm alleged by petitioner here-essentially thirdparty interference with at-will employment relationships-states a claim for relief under Section 1985. In so deciding, Court has extended public policy exception to at-will employment doctrine, which denies an employer right to fire an employee who makes public complaints or threatens to give a statement on such matters to a government agency, to include claims for damages by employee when a third party interferes with employment contract. Section 1985 is part of 1871 Civil Rights Act and was intended to protect employees from intimidation, at that time from Ku Klux Klan, when they testified in federal court proceedings against their employer. When Michael Haddle sued two former officers from company where he was employed in U.S. District Court for Southern District of Georgia, his petition was dismissed for failure to a claim on which relief can be granted. The 1I th Circuit affirmed on authority of a previous decision, Morast v. Lance, 807 F.2d 926 (1987). The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve issue because rule in Morast was in conflict with decisions from First and Ninth CircuitsIrizarry v. Quiros, 722 F.2d 869 (lst Cir. 1983), and Portman v. County of Santa Clara, 995 F.2d 898 (9th Cir. 1993). Court's review limited Since Haddle's action was dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Court's review was limited to determining whether a petitioner could state a claim for damages by alleging that a conspiracy proscribed by Section 1985(2) induced his employer to terminate his at-will employment. The Court reviewed petition under assumption that facts as alleged were true and that respondents had engaged in a conspiracy as defined in Section 1985(2). According to facts of case, a 1995 federal grand jury indictment had charged Healthmaster Inc. and two of its officers, respondents Garrison and Kelly, with Medicare fraud. Haddle appeared before grand jury but never testified because of a lack of time. Haddle alleged that respondents conspired to have him terminated from his position with Healthmaster after he cooperated and agreed to testify and to deter him from agreeing to testify at a future federal criminal trial. Haddle's petition also alleged that even though respondents were barred from participating in company affairs at time he was terminated, they had conspired with one of remaining officers at Healthmaster to bring about his termination. He alleged, They did this both to intimidate petitioner and to retaliate against him for his attendance at federal court proceedings. Haddle further alleged that he had been injured in his person or property by respondents' acts, in violation of Section 1985(2), and that he was entitled to recover damages against respondents jointly and severally. Obstruction of justice Section 1985 focuses on interference with civil rights through obstruction of justice and intimidation of a party, witness or juror. …
Publication Year: 1999
Publication Date: 1999-07-01
Language: en
Type: article
Access and Citation
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot