Opinion ID: 1951668
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Holdings in Adams and Carl

Text: In Adams, supra, we recognized an intentional tort action for wrongful discharge, holding that there is a very narrow exception to the at-will doctrine under which a discharged at-will employee may sue his or her former employer for wrongful discharge when the sole reason for the discharge is the employee's refusal to violate the law, as expressed in a statute or municipal regulation. 597 A.2d at 34. We concluded that, according to the jury's verdict in that case, the appellant was forced to choose between violating [a] regulation [operation of a motor vehicle without a current inspection sticker] [4] and keeping his jobthe very choice which... he should not have been required to make. In Carl, supra, We h[e]ld that the very `narrow exception' created in Adams should not be read in a manner that makes it impossible to recognize any additional public policy exceptions to the at-will doctrine that may warrant recognition. 702 A.2d at 160. In addition, a majority of the court also said: Future requests to recognize [public policy] exceptions ... should be addressed only on a case-by-case basis. The court should consider seriously only those arguments that reflect a clear mandate of public policy i.e., those that make a clear showing, based on some identifiable policy that has been officially declared in a statute or municipal regulation, or in the Constitution, that a new exception is needed. [5] Id. at 164.