Opinion ID: 2222013
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Object of Tortious Interference?

Text: In Hoschler, the Court of Appeals correctly noted that to be actionable as tortious interference with a business relationship, the interference must necessarily impact on a valid business relationship or expectancy. Unless constitutionally, statutorily, or contractually prohibited, an employer, without incurring liability, may terminate an at-will employee at any time with or without reason. Walpus v. Milwaukee Elec. Tool Corp., 248 Neb. 145, 532 N.W.2d 316 (1995); Hamersky v. Nicholson Supply Co., 246 Neb. 156, 517 N.W.2d 382 (1994). Relying upon the holdings of a majority of courts which have addressed the issue, as well as Restatement (Second) of Torts § 766 (1979), the Court of Appeals in Hoschler held that at-will employment status, in and of itself, does not preclude a claim for tortious interference with the employment relationship. 3 Neb.App. at 682, 529 N.W.2d at 826. The court reasoned that the fact that at-will employment may be terminated by the parties without liability does not necessarily privilege another individual, business, or entity, in other words, a `third person,' to unjustifiably induce the termination. Id. We agree with and adopt this holding and the rationale upon which it is based.