Court Opinion

ID: 9767644
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:22:58.451563+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:32.133042
License: Public Domain

LEVY, Justice,
dissenting.
Once again, this case demonstrates the harshness of the “employment-at-will” doctrine. The material facts here are undisputed. Appellant was employed by KPRC Radio for almost 17 years, ultimately becoming a vice-president and sales manager when, in October 1986, he was fired without warning, explanation, criticism, or good cause. Seventeen years of loyal and competent service deserve more protection from the law than what this archaic, judicially created doctrine has provided — which is nothing.
Other states have judicially adopted in employment relationships the “implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,” which would repair this gaping hole in our jurisprudence and bring us into the realities of 20th century industrial life. I hope that Texas will not be the last to repudiate the harsh “at-will” doctrine; this case would certainly seem to be an appropriate one to begin the transition.
I have set forth my views on this problem at length in Deck v. Daniel, Mann, Johnson, and Mendenhall, 748 S.W.2d 501, 503 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1988, no writ); and Little v. Bryce, 733 S.W.2d 937, 939 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, no writ), neither opinion, alas, being the majority. No useful purpose would be served in repeating what I said therein, but perhaps I may be excused for reiterating a strongly felt principle proclaimed by the United States Supreme Court in 1886, in an obviously different context, but applicable nonetheless:
[T]he nature and the theory of our institutions of government ... do not mean to leave room for the play and action of purely personal and arbitrary power ... For the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails....
Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369-70, 6 S.Ct. 1064, 1070-71, 30 L.Ed. 220 (1886).
If we wish to avoid the intolerable situation where “one man may be compelled to hold ... the means of living ... essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another,” we should consider the “good faith and fair dealing” doctrine, and how it might equitably apply to all contracts, but particularly employment contracts, and the hiring and termination procedures in contemporary commercial activities.
I disagree somewhat with the majority’s assertion that recognition and enforcement of the “implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing ... is not a proper matter for our consideration.” Rule 90(c) of Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure states in pertinent part as follows:
An opinion by a court of appeals shall be published only if ... it is one that ... (2) involves a legal issue of continuing public interest; [or] (3) criticizes existing law
[[Image here]]
To the extent that the majority’s assertion overlooks or dilutes the notion that *541improvement and progress in the law must have their genesis in criticism of the existing order, I think that such assertion is in conflict with rule 90(c).
For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent.