Court Opinion

ID: 9717715
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:09:02.383813+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:54.800175
License: Public Domain

RATLIFF, Presiding Judge,
concurring.
Our supreme court has recognized an exception to the employment at will doe-trine when an employee is discharged in retaliation for his exercising a constitution*426ally or statutorily conferred right. Framp-ton v. Central Indiana Gas Co. (1973), 260 Ind. 249, 297 N.E.2d 425. I have argued for recognition of a "public policy" exception to the employment at will doctrine in cases where an employee is retaliatorily discharged for his actions in furtherance of a recognized public policy. Campbell v. Eli Lilly & Co. (1980), Ind.App., 413 N.E.2d 1054, trans. denied (Ratliff, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). These views also were expressed by Justice Hunter in his opinion dissenting from dent al of transfer in Campbell v. Eli Lilly & Co. (1981), Ind., 421 N.E.2d 1099. Neither our supreme court nor any panel of this court has been persuaded to adopt the so-called "public policy" exception to the employment at will doctrine.
Despite my personal views concerning limitations which properly should be placed upon the anachronistic employment at will doctrine, none of such limitations is applicable here. Thus, in this case, the employment at will doctrine is properly applied. For this reason, I concur.