Court Opinion

ID: 9739556
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:17:28.948467+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:12.952751
License: Public Domain

KIRSCH, Chief Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Our Supreme Court in Morgan Drive Away, Inc. v. Brant, 489 N.E.2d 933 (Ind.1986) stated the "employment at will doe-trine has steadfastly been recognized and enforced as the public policy of this State" and observed that the "[rlevision or rejection of the doctrine is better left to the legislature." Id. at 984. The Court declined the opportunity to extend the exception carved out in Frampton v. Central Indiana Gas Co., 260 Ind. 249, 297 N.E.2d 425 (1973) to a claim for retaliatory discharge for filing a claim for unpaid wages. I am unable to draw meaningful distinctions between the facts before the Court in Morgan Drive Away and those presented here. Accordingly, I believe our decision, like that of the trial court, is controlled by that precedent. I respectfully dissent from the opinion of the majority and would affirm the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiff's retaliatory discharge claim.
On the issue of piercing the corporate veil, I coneur with the decision of my colleagues.