Court Opinion

ID: 9737133
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:16:56.69796+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:23:56.775618
License: Public Domain

BUCHANAN, Chief Judge,
concurring and dissenting.
I concur as to Issue Two, but it is my firm opinion that Morgan Drive Away, Inc. v. Brant (1986), Ind., 489 N.E.2d 983, militates against the majority position. Justice Dickson speaking for a majority of the Supreme Court uses this unequivocal language:
"Since Frampton, however, Indiana courts have refused to recognize retaliatory discharge actions in cases not involving workmen's compensation *1344claims. Martin v. Platt (1979), 179 Ind. App. 688, 386 N.E.2d 1026, denied an action for retaliatory discharge where terminated employees claimed that their discharge was in retaliation for having reported to a company official that their immediate superior had solicited and received illegal "kickbacks" from company suppliers. McQueeney v. Glenn (1980), Ind.App., 400 N.E.2d 806, cert. denied (1981), 449 U.S. 1125, 101 S.Ct. 948, 67 L Ed.2d 112, rejected plaintiff's contention that termination because of her marriage constituted actionable retaliatory discharge. Campbell v. Eli Lilly and Co. (1980), Ind.App., 413 N.E.2d 1054, affirmed summary judgment against an employee who claimed that his discharge was in retaliation for charging the employer with practices contrary to the federal drug regulatory scheme and regulations.
[1] The employment at will doctrine has steadfastly been recognized and enforced as the public policy of this State. See, discussion in Campbell, supra, 413 N.E.2d at 1060. Revision or rejection of the doctrine is better left to the legisla-twre. (Emphasis supplied.)