Opinion ID: 1230716
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: public policy exceptions to at-will employment doctrine

Text: The clear rule in Nebraska is that unless constitutionally, statutorily, or contractually prohibited, an employer, without incurring liability, may terminate an at-will employee at any time with or without reason. Malone v. American Bus. Info., supra . We recognize, however, a public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine. Id. See, Mau v. Omaha Nat. Bank, 207 Neb. 308, 299 N.W.2d 147 (1980), disapproved on other grounds, Johnston v. Panhandle Co-op. Assn., 225 Neb. 732, 408 N.W.2d 261 (1987). Under the public policy exception, we will allow an employee to claim damages for wrongful discharge when the motivation for the firing contravenes public policy. Malone v. American Bus. Info., supra . This court has applied the public policy exception in several cases. In one case, an employee alleged that he was terminated because he refused to take a polygraph test. Ambroz v. Cornhusker Square Ltd., 226 Neb. 899, 416 N.W.2d 510 (1987). We noted that under the Licensing of Truth and Deception Examiners Act, Neb.Rev. Stat. § 81-1901 et seq. (Reissue 1999), an employer could not condition employment on a requirement that a person submit to a truth and deception examination. See, § 81-1932; Ambroz v. Cornhusker Square Ltd., supra . A violation of § 81-1932 is a Class II misdemeanor. See § 81-1933. As a result, we determined that the statutory provision constituted a pronouncement of public policy that clearly prohibited the use of a polygraph to deny employment. We then defined the circumstances in which the public policy exception would be recognized, stating: This is a case involving a discharge in violation of a clear, statutorily mandated public policy. We believe that it is important that abusive discharge claims of employees at will be limited to manageable and clear standards. The right of an employer to terminate employees at will should be restricted only by exceptions created by statute or to those instances where a very clear mandate of public policy has been violated. This case falls within that rule. Ambroz v. Cornhusker Square Ltd., 226 Neb. at 905, 416 N.W.2d at 515. We have also recognized a public policy exception when an employee claimed he was discharged for reporting his suspicions that his employer was violating state odometer fraud laws. Schriner v. Meginnis Ford Co., 228 Neb. 85, 421 N.W.2d 755 (1988). Unlike Ambroz, there was no statute in Schriner that prohibited an employer from discharging an employee for reporting criminal conduct. We noted, however, that it was a crime to engage in odometer fraud in Nebraska. See Neb. Rev.Stat. § 60-132 et seq. (Reissue 1998). We then reasoned that the enforcement of the criminal code is a basic public policy and that the enactment of the criminal statute was a declaration of public policy against odometer fraud. But we then found that an action for wrongful discharge could lie only if the employee acted in good faith when reporting the violation of the criminal code. Because there was no evidence that the employee had reasonable cause to believe that his employer acted unlawfully, we affirmed the trial court's order granting the employer summary judgment. The Nebraska Court of Appeals has also found a public policy exception when an employee was discharged for refusing to drive a truck that had defective brakes, because to do so would be a violation of the criminal code. Simonsen v. Hendricks Sodding & Landscaping, 5 Neb.App. 263, 558 N.W.2d 825 (1997). More recently, we refused to find a public policy exception when an employee was discharged for asserting a claim under the Nebraska Wage Payment and Collection Act, Neb.Rev.Stat. § 48-1228 et seq. (Reissue 1998). Malone v. American Bus. Info., 262 Neb. 733, 634 N.W.2d 788 (2001). We noted that unlike the act in Ambroz, the Nebraska Wage Payment and Collection Act did not contain a specific provision restricting an employer's right to discharge an at-will employee. We further noted that cases from other jurisdictions were of little guidance because of differences in statutory language. States that allowed a claim for retaliatory discharge had statutes that prohibited employers from discharging employees for making a claim or made such a discharge a crime. We stated that the act was primarily remedial in nature and provided specific procedures for the enforcement of substantive rights to compensation for work performed that arise not from the statute but from the employment relationship itself. We ultimately concluded that the Nebraska Wage Payment and Collection Act does not represent a `very clear mandate of public policy' which would warrant recognition of an exception to the employmentat-will doctrine. Malone v. American Bus. Info., 262 Neb. at 739, 634 N.W.2d at 793.