Although the jury must assess the legitimacy of the employer's decision to discharge, it should not be thrust into a managerial role. We believe this approach satisfies the concerns expressed in Wilkerson. Although our approach permits the jury to consider what must necessarily be a subjective decision, we do not suggest that, standing alone, an employer's subjective belief that it possessed good cause is sufficient. Had RHH decided not to terminate Cotran's employment and had another female RHH employee thereafter claimed sexual harassment by Cotran, RHH would have found itself in the unenviable position of having retained someone it had every reason to believe had done this before and would do it again. Public policy therefore requires that employers be given broad discretion to determine what types of speech and conduct fall within the prohibited category of sexual harassment when determining whether to terminate an employee, and such determinations are entitled to deference when the discharged employee seeks to recover for breach of an implied contract.
Information here is correct at the time it is posted.
Case decisions cited here may be reversed. Please do not rely on this information without consulting an attorney first. All rights reserved.