employment doctrine in Mississippi

2024There is a public policy exception to the employment at will doctrine: “whether there is a written contract or not: (1) an employee who refuses to participate in an illegal act as in Laws[4] shall not be barred by the common law rule of employment at will from bringing an action in tort for damages against his employer . . . .” McArn, 626 So. 2d at 607 . ¶14.

2024McArn’s exception for reporting illegal activity of an employer applies to Walters: “(2) an employee who is discharged for reporting illegal acts of his employer to the employer or anyone else is not barred by the employment at will doctrine from bringing action in tort for damages against his employer.” McArn, 626 So. 2d at 607 .

2022“Mississippi adheres to the employment at will doctrine, which states ‘absent an employment contract expressly providing to the contrary, an employee may be discharged at the employer’s will for good reason, bad reason, or no reason at all, excepting only reasons independently declared legally impermissible.’” Harris, 873 So. 2d at 986 (¶46) (quoting Shaw v. Burchfield, 481 So. 2d 247, 253-54 (Miss. 1985)).

2020Under the at-will doctrine, “an employee may be discharged at the employer’s will for good reason, bad reason, or no reason at all, excepting only reasons independently declared legally impermissible.” McArn, 626 So. 2d at 606 (emphasis added) (quoting Shaw, 481 So. 2d at 254 ); see also Kelly, 397 So. 2d at 875 (recognizing that “the harshness of the terminable at will rule is subject to 3 These exceptions are: (1) an employee who refuses to participate in an illegal act . . . shall not be barred by the common law rule of employment at will from bringing an action in tort for damages against

2022“Mississippi adheres to the employment at will doctrine, which states ‘absent an employment contract expressly providing to the contrary, an employee may be discharged at the employer’s will for good reason, bad reason, or no reason at all, excepting only reasons independently declared legally impermissible.’” Harris, 873 So. 2d at 986 (¶46) (quoting Shaw v. Burchfield, 481 So. 2d 247, 253-54 (Miss. 1985)).

2021Valley State Univ., 873 So. 2d 970, 986 (¶46) (Miss. 2004) (quotation marks omitted).

2018In Bobbitt v. Orchard, Ltd. , 603 So.2d 356 , 357 (Miss. 1992), the Court recognized the following exception to the employment at will doctrine: [W]hen an employer publishes and disseminates to its employees a manual setting forth the proceedings which will be followed in event of an employee's infraction of rules, and there is nothing in the employment contract to the contrary, then the employer will be required to follow its own manual in disciplining or discharging employees for infractions or misconduct specifically covered by the manual. ¶ 17.

2018In Bobbitt v. Orchard, Ltd., 603 So. 2d 356, 357 (Miss. 1992), the Court recognized the following exception to the employment at will doctrine: [W]hen an employer publishes and disseminates to its employees a manual setting forth the proceedings which will be followed in event of an employee’s infraction of rules, and there is nothing in the employment contract to the contrary, then the employer will be required to follow its own manual in disciplining or discharging employees for infractions or misconduct specifically covered by the manual. ¶17.

2004Buchanan v. Ameristar Casino Vicksburg, Inc., 852 So.2d 25, 26-27 (Miss.2003); McArn v. Allied Terminix Co., 626 So.2d 603, 606-07 (Miss.1993). *987 ¶ 47.

2002Buchanan v. Ameristar Casino Vicksburg, Inc., 852 So.2d 25, 26-27 (Miss. 2003); McArn v. Allied Terminix Co., 626 So.2d 603, 606-07 (Miss. 1993). ¶47.

2016Perry v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 508 So. 2d 1086, 1088 (Miss. 1987).

2016Perry v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 508 So.2d 1086, 1088 (Miss. 1987).

2023This “exception ‘is based on an employer’s duty not to thwart the public interest by terminating employees for speaking the truth.’” Frank v. City of Flowood, 203 So. 3d 786, 792 (¶27) (Miss.

2020McArn, 626 So. 2d at 607 . 9 exception in light of express legislative action” (quoting Green v. Amerada-Hess Corp., 612 F.2d 212, 214 (5th Cir. 1980))). ¶20.

2020Under the at-will doctrine, “an employee may be discharged at the employer’s will for good reason, bad reason, or no reason at all, excepting only reasons independently declared legally impermissible.” McArn, 626 So. 2d at 606 (emphasis added) (quoting Shaw, 481 So. 2d at 254 ); see also Kelly, 397 So. 2d at 875 (recognizing that “the harshness of the terminable at will rule is subject to 3 These exceptions are: (1) an employee who refuses to participate in an illegal act . . . shall not be barred by the common law rule of employment at will from bringing an action in tort for damages against

2017Mississippi follows the doctrine of employment' at will, under which “either an employer or an employee may terminate an employment relationship, unless the parties are bound by an employment contract or a contract^ detailing the term of employment.” Gibbs, 203 So.3d at 665 (¶ 14).

2016“It is an employer’s duty not to thwart the public interest by terminating employees_” Galle, 180 So.3d at 622 (quoting Cmty. Care Ctr. of Aberdeen v. Barrentine, 160 So.3d 216, 220 (Miss.2015)) (emphasis added).

2003Byrd v. Imperial Palace of Miss., 807 So.2d 433 (¶ 18) (Miss.2001); McCrary, 755 So.2d at 1144-45 (¶ 16). ¶ 9.

1998See Winograd v. Willis, 789 S.W.2d 307, 312 (Tex.App.-- Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, writ denied); Hicks v. Baylor University Medical Ctr, 789 S.W.2d 299, 304 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1990, writ denied).

1998See Winograd v. Willis, 789 S.W.2d 307, 312 (Tex.App.-- Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, writ denied); Hicks v. Baylor University Medical Ctr, 789 S.W.2d 299, 304 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1990, writ denied).