Skip to main content

Wrongful termination

A fired employee's claim that the firing breached an employment contract or some public law. 

Where an employment contract requires termination only for cause, a terminated employee can sue for arbitrary discharge. Wrongful discharge claims usually arise, however, under the default rule of at-will employment, in which both labor and management can terminate the relationship at will. In some states, a terminated worker can sue for wrongful discharge under contract law if he can show an implied contract for permanent employment, combined with a termination that lacked proper cause. For example, some courts have held that a provision in an employee handbook providing that termination shall be for cause served to establish an implied contract, allowing a suit for wrongful termination. E.g., Nicosia v. Wakefern Food Corp., 643 A.2d 554 (N.J. 1994).

If basing the claim on a public law, the plaintiff must show unlawful action such as illegal discrimination or retribution for whistleblowing. In Adams v. George W. Cochran & Co., 597 A.2d 28 (D.C. App. 1991), for example, the D.C. Court of Appeals allowed a wrongful discharge claim to proceed when the employee had been fired for refusing to break the law.

Wrongful termination may also be called wrongful discharge, wrongful firing, wrongful dismissal, illegal discharge, illegal termination, and illegal dismissal.

See Abusive discharge (compare).

Definition from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary

A legal claim that an employee has been fired for an illegal reason, such as discrimination, breach of contract, or in violation of public policy. (See also: wrongful termination in violation of public policy)

Definition provided by Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary.

August 19, 2010, 5:27 pm

 

Elaine's employment contract stated that she could only be fired "for cause." 

After four years of employment and two months into her latest yearly contract, Elaine was let go after her son defeated her boss's son at the state tennis championship. 

Elaine's son acted obnoxiously after winning and strutted around the court yelling "take that, little rich boy."  Elaine's boss commented that bad manners have consequences and decided to fire Elaine on the spot.

Elaine sued for wrongful termination and won.  The court held that although the behavior of Elaine's son might strain the working relationship between Elaine and her boss, her immediate firing constituted a capricious decision without a legitimate business cause.

"Semple concedes that his employment with Federal Express was at-will, but argues that an exception to the at-will-employment doctrine places his termination outside its application.  Under South Dakota law, '[a]n employment having no specified term may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other, unless otherwise provided by statute.'  The at-will employment doctrine applies to wrongful termination claims.  Accordingly, for Semple to have a valid claim for wrongful termination, his claim must fit within one of the limited exceptions South Dakota has recognized to the at-will employment doctrine.  To date, South Dakota has only exempted terminations: (1) that violate public policy; (2) of employees with 'for cause only' agreements or implied 'for cause only' agreements; and (3) of employees who accept employment after promises of a promotion."

[After it held that no exception was shown to apply, the court affirmed summary judgment in favor of Federal Express].

Semple v. Fed. Express Corp., 566 F.3d 788, 791-92 (8th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted).