at-will rule in Oklahoma

2017See, e.g. , Moore v. Warr Acres Nursing Center, LLC. , 2016 OK 28 , __ P.3d ___; Vasek v. Bd. Of County Comm'rs , 2008 OK 35 , 186 P.3d 928 ; Silver v. CPC-Sherwood Manor, Inc. , 2004 OK 1 , 84 P.3d 728 ; Clinton v. State of Oklahoma ex rel.

2017See, e.g. , Moore v. Warr Acres Nursing Center, LLC. , 2016 OK 28 , __ P.3d ___; Vasek v. Bd. Of County Comm'rs , 2008 OK 35 , 186 P.3d 928 ; Silver v. CPC-Sherwood Manor, Inc. , 2004 OK 1 , 84 P.3d 728 ; Clinton v. State of Oklahoma ex rel.

2017See, e.g. , Moore v. Warr Acres Nursing Center, LLC. , 2016 OK 28 , __ P.3d ___; Vasek v. Bd. Of County Comm'rs , 2008 OK 35 , 186 P.3d 928 ; Silver v. CPC-Sherwood Manor, Inc. , 2004 OK 1 , 84 P.3d 728 ; Clinton v. State of Oklahoma ex rel.

2017See, e.g. , Moore v. Warr Acres Nursing Center, LLC. , 2016 OK 28 , __ P.3d ___; Vasek v. Bd. Of County Comm'rs , 2008 OK 35 , 186 P.3d 928 ; Silver v. CPC-Sherwood Manor, Inc. , 2004 OK 1 , 84 P.3d 728 ; Clinton v. State of Oklahoma ex rel.

2000Hayes v. Eateries, Inc., 1995 OK 108 , 905 P.2d 778 . 121 Under the well established at-will rule "an employer may discharge an employee for good ecause, for no cause or for cause morally wrong, without being thereby guilty of legal wrong." Burk v. K-Mart Corp., 1989 OK 22 , 770 P.2d 24 .

2000Hayes v. Eateries, Inc., 1995 OK 108 , 905 P.2d 778 . 121 Under the well established at-will rule "an employer may discharge an employee for good ecause, for no cause or for cause morally wrong, without being thereby guilty of legal wrong." Burk v. K-Mart Corp., 1989 OK 22 , 770 P.2d 24 .

2022Darrow, 2008 OK 1 A policy to protect public funds from theft, thus protecting the public welfare, is within the narrow exception to the at-will doctrine established in Burk . ¶14 The Darrow Court began to establish our test for understanding what statutes create a clear and compelling statement of public policy.

2007Pearson v. Hope Lumber & Supply Co., 1991 OK 112 , 820 P.2d 443, 444 . ¶ 6 It is reasonably inferred that Employee was an at-will employee, since his lawsuit is based solely on the public policy exception to the at-will rule of employment.

2007Pearson v. Hope Lumber & Supply Co., 1991 OK 112 , 820 P.2d 443, 444 . ¶ 6 It is reasonably inferred that Employee was an at-will employee, since his lawsuit is based solely on the public policy exception to the at-will rule of employment.

2004Id.

1992Pierce v. Franklin Electric Company, 737 P.2d 921 (Okl.1987).

1989The classic statement of the at-will rule was that an employer may discharge an employee for good cause, for no cause or even for cause morally wrong, without being thereby guilty of legal wrong. [2] Principles of freedom of contract and the importance of economic growth are attributed to the development of the terminable-at-will doctrine. [3] This Court has observed the terminable-at-will doctrine is "not absolute however, and the interests of the people of Oklahoma are not best served by a marketplace of cut-throat business dealings where the law of the jungle is thinly clad in contractual l

1989The classic statement of the at-will rule was that an employer may discharge an employee for good cause, for no cause or even for cause morally wrong, without being thereby guilty of legal wrong. 2 Principles of freedom of contract and the importance of economic growth are attributed to the development of the terminable-at-will doctrine. 3 This Court has observed the terminable-at-will doctrine is “not absolute however, and the interests of the people of Oklahoma are not best served by a marketplace of cut-throat business dealings where the law of the jungle is thinly clad in contractual lace.

1987While we do not reject the propriety of such a rule, we are not persuaded that it should be the result of judicial decision." [Emphasis supplied.] [19] See Parnar v. Americana Hotels, Inc., supra note 16, 652 P.2d at 629 , and Brockmeyer v. Dunn & Bradstreet, supra note 15, 335 N.W. at 838. [20] Examples of the implied-in-law contract theories that courts have crafted from the general categories are: (a) job training where the costs are borne by the employee, Ward v. Consolidated Foods Corp., 480 S.W.2d 483 [Tex.Civ.App. 1972]; (b) detrimental reliance followed by turning down offers of other

1987While we do not reject the propriety of such a rule, we are not persuaded that it should be the result of judicial decision." [Emphasis supplied.] [19] See Parnar v. Americana Hotels, Inc., supra note 16, 652 P.2d at 629 , and Brockmeyer v. Dunn & Bradstreet, supra note 15, 335 N.W. at 838. [20] Examples of the implied-in-law contract theories that courts have crafted from the general categories are: (a) job training where the costs are borne by the employee, Ward v. Consolidated Foods Corp., 480 S.W.2d 483 [Tex.Civ.App. 1972]; (b) detrimental reliance followed by turning down offers of other

1987In Wagenseller, supra 710 P.2d at 1040 , the court gave as its rationale for rejecting the implied-in-law good-faith duty that "were we to adopt such a rule, we fear that we would tread perilously close to abolishing completely the at-will doctrine and establishing by judicial fiat the benefits which employees can and should get only through collective bargaining agreements or tenure provisions....

1987In Wagenseller, supra 710 P.2d at 1040 , the court gave as its rationale for rejecting the implied-in-law good-faith duty that "were we to adopt such a rule, we fear that we would tread perilously close to abolishing completely the at-will doctrine and establishing by judicial fiat the benefits which employees can and should get only through collective bargaining agreements or tenure provisions... .

1987While we do not reject the propriety of such a rule, we are not persuaded that it should be the result of judicial decision." [Emphasis supplied.] [19] See Parnar v. Americana Hotels, Inc., supra note 16, 652 P.2d at 629 , and Brockmeyer v. Dunn & Bradstreet, supra note 15, 335 N.W. at 838. [20] Examples of the implied-in-law contract theories that courts have crafted from the general categories are: (a) job training where the costs are borne by the employee, Ward v. Consolidated Foods Corp., 480 S.W.2d 483 [Tex.Civ.App. 1972]; (b) detrimental reliance followed by turning down offers of other