13 Massachusetts opinions name it 3 courts 1992–2014 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Massachusetts courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Wright v. Shriners Hospital for Crippled Childrengreen2 sentences1993While perhaps “the Achilles heel of the [public policy exception] lies in the definition of public policy,” see id. at 478 (Liacos, C.J. dissenting), quoting Palmateer v. International Harvester Co., 85 Ill.2d 124, 130 (1981), the SJC has specified three areas where a public policy exception to the at-will employment rule is appropriate: “[W]here employees are . . . [terminated] for doing what the law requires (citation omitted), for performing important public deeds such as cooperating with law enforcement officials (citation omitted), and for refusing to commit unlawful acts (citation omitte 1993While perhaps “the Achilles heel of the [public policy exception] lies in the definition of public policy,” see id. at 478 (Liacos, C.J. dissenting), quoting Palmateer v. International Harvester Co., 85 Ill.2d 124, 130 (1981), the SJC has specified three areas where a public policy exception to the at-will employment rule is appropriate: “[W]here employees are . . . [terminated] for doing what the law requires (citation omitted), for performing important public deeds such as cooperating with law enforcement officials (citation omitted), and for refusing to commit unlawful acts (citation omitte | 4 | 5 |
Smith-Pfeffer v. Superintendent of the Walter E. Fernald State Schoolgreen2 sentences2012See, Smith-Pfeffer , at 149-50. 2011The public policy exception to the at-will employment rule is not that broad.” Smith-Pfeffer, 404 Mass. at 150 . 3. | 2 | 4 |
Mistishen v. Falcone Piano Co.green2 sentences2014See Mistishen v. Falcone Piano Co., 36 Mass.App.Ct. 243, 245 (1994) (“Although the term ‘public policy’ is amorphous, the public policy exception to the at-will employment rule has been made available to employees discharged for performing important public deeds”) (internal citation omitted). 1997While the importance of a public deed is not determined on the sole basis of whether the law absolutely requires its performance, . . . such a mandate would bespeak a legislative determination of the importance of the act to the public.” Mistishen v. Falcone Piano Co., 36 Mass.App.Ct. 243, 245 (1994)(citations omitted). | 2 | 2 |
King v. Driscollgreen1 sentence2003However, our Supreme Judicial Court has recognized an exception to the at-will employment rule “if the termination violates a clearly established public policy.” King v. Driscoll, 418 Mass. 576, 582 (1994). | 1 | 1 |
Kolodziej v. Smithgreen1 sentence1999Koloziej v. Smith, 412 Mass. 215, 221-22 (1992). | 1 | 1 |
Flesner v. Technical Communications Corp.green1 sentence1994Under the Supreme Judicial Court’s decision in Flesner v. Technical Communications Corp., 410 Mass. 805, 810-11 (1992), the exception applies only where an employee is terminated for: (1) asserting a legally guaranteed right: (2) doing what the law requires: (3) refusing to do that which the law forbids; or (4) performing important public deeds. | 1 | 1 |
Petermann v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 396green1 sentence1994Although the term “public policy” is amorphous, see Petermann v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, Local 396, 174 Cal. App. 2d 184, 188 (1959), the public policy exception to the at-will employment rule has been made available to employees discharged for performing important public deeds. | 1 | 1 |
Palmateer v. International Harvester Co.green1 sentence1993While perhaps “the Achilles heel of the [public policy exception] lies in the definition of public policy,” see id. at 478 (Liacos, C.J. dissenting), quoting Palmateer v. International Harvester Co., 85 Ill.2d 124, 130 (1981), the SJC has specified three areas where a public policy exception to the at-will employment rule is appropriate: “[W]here employees are . . . [terminated] for doing what the law requires (citation omitted), for performing important public deeds such as cooperating with law enforcement officials (citation omitted), and for refusing to commit unlawful acts (citation omitte | 1 | 1 |
Cort v. Bristol-Myers Co.green1 sentence1993See Cort v. Bristol-Myers Co., 385 Mass. 300, 303 (1982) (discussing public policy exception to at-will employment rule); Mullen v. Ludlow Hosp. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Massachusetts. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Upton v. JWP Businessland
green
1 sentence2002There is an exception to the at-will employment rule if the reason for discharge violates a “clearly established public policy." Upton, 425 Mass. at 757 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Gram v. Liberty Mutual Insurance
green
2 sentences1992Id. 1992Id. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.