STATE COURT DISPARITY ON EMPLOYMENT AT‐WILL

Abstract

State courts have produced three major exceptions to the employment at‐will doctrine: (1) violation of public policy, (2) breach of an implied contract (including written policies, oral promises, and implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing), and (3) commitment of a tort of emotional distress, defamation, or third‐party interference with a contractual relationship. We analyzed state appellate court decisions to identify judicial philosophies and to determine which states have accepted or rejected the various exceptions to employment at‐will. Our results show that the states vary considerably. The most commonly accepted arguments against employment at‐will are violations of public policy, breaches of implied contracts in employee handbooks, and torts of outrageous emotional distress. Overall, this research highlights the need for statewide consistency with regard to the at‐will issue.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 16 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.