Opinion ID: 2353157
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Public Policy Exception for Wrongful Discharge

Text: The public policy exception to the at-will employment rule, often called the wrongful discharge doctrine, is very narrowly drawn. An at-will employee may not be terminated for refusing to perform an illegal act or reporting wrongdoing or violations of law to superiors or third parties. See Porter v. Reardon Mach. Co., 962 S.W.2d 932 (Mo.App.1998); See also Boyle v. Vista Eyewear, Inc., 700 S.W.2d 859 (Mo.App.1985). [1]
It is well-settled that public policy is not found in the varying personal opinions and whims of judges or courts, charged with the interpretation and declaration of the established law, as to what they themselves believe to be the demands or interests of the public. In re Rahn's Estate, 316 Mo. 492, 501, 291 S.W. 120, 123 (Mo.1926). Therefore, a wrongful discharge action must be based on a constitutional provision, a statute, a regulation based on a statute or a rule promulgated by a governmental body. See Johnson v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 745 S.W.2d 661, 663 (Mo. banc 1988). Absent such explicit authority, the wrongful discharge action fails as a matter of law. Id. Moreover, not every statute or regulation gives rise to an at-will wrongful termination action. See, e.g., Lay v. St. Louis Helicopter Airways, Inc., 869 S.W.2d 173 (Mo.App.1993). A vague or general statute, regulation, or rule cannot be successfully pled under the at-will wrongful termination theory, because it would force the court to decide on its own what public policy requires. See id. Such vagueness would also cause the duties imposed upon employers [to] become more vague and create difficulties for employers to plan around liability based on the vagaries of judges. Timothy Heinz, The Assault on the Employment at Will Doctrine, 48 Mo. L.Rev. 855, 876 (1983).
Margiotta claims that he falls into the second theory of wrongful discharge, that of reporting violations of law or public policy to his superiors, commonly referred to as whistleblowing. Lynch v. Blanke Baer & Bowey Krimko, Inc. 901 S.W.2d 147, 150 (Mo.App.1995). For Margiotta to prevail, he must show that he reported to superiors or to public authorities serious misconduct that constitutes a violation of the law and of .... well established and clearly mandated public policy. Id. (emphasis added). The mere citation of a constitutional or statutory provision in a [pleading] is not by itself sufficient to state a cause of action for retaliatory discharge, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the public policy mandated by the cited provision is violated by the discharge. 82 Am.Jur.2d § 61 citing Fellhauer v. City of Geneva, 142 Ill.2d 495, 154 Ill.Dec. 649, 568 N.E.2d 870 (1991); See generally Johnson, 745 S.W.2d at 663. Generally, there is no whistleblowing protection for an employee who merely disagrees personally with an employer's legally-allowed policy. Daniel P. Westman, Whistleblowing the Law of Retaliatory Discharge, 112(1991). See also 82 Am.Jur.2d § 54. However, the violation of the applicable authority need not result in criminal sanctions. Whether the violation results in civil fines, injunctions, or disciplinary action against a professional license is immaterial to the wrongful discharge action. Moreover, as our companion opinion Fleshner v. Pepose Vision Institute, Inc ., announced, there is no requirement that the violations that the employee reports affect the employee personally, nor that the law violated prohibit or penalize retaliation against those reporting its violation. 304 S.W.3d at 97. The pertinent inquiry here is whether the authority clearly prohibits the conduct at issue in the action. An illustration of this principle was discussed in Lay v. St. Louis Helicopter Airways, Inc ., where a helicopter pilot alleged that he was terminated because he refused, against his employer's wishes, to make three flights he believed to be in violation of FAA regulations. 869 S.W.2d at 175. The regulation he cited mandated that member's pilots will exercise their best judgment to insure a maximum safety factor at all times. Id. The court found that regulation too vague and noted that the pilot did not cite to any specific regulation showing the flights unsafe. Id.