Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Kansas 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 |
|---|---|---|
Campbell v. Husky Hogs, L.L.C.green2 sentences2019"Kansas courts permit the common-law tort of retaliatory discharge as a limited exception to the at-will employment doctrine when it is necessary to protect a strongly held state public policy from being undermined." Husky Hogs, 292 Kan. at 229 ; see also Lumry, 305 Kan. at 564; Platt, 305 Kan. at 133; Hysten v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Ry. 2019Husky Hogs, 292 Kan. at 229 ("The case law makes it obvious that Kansas courts permit the common-law tort of retaliatory discharge as a limited exception to the at-will employment doctrine when it is necessary to protect a strongly held state public policy from being undermined."). | 2 | 3 |
Conner v. Schnuck Markets, Inc.green1 sentence1998Federal courts in Kansas have followed Poisons interpretation of Kansas law (exceptions to the at-will employment doctrine should be limited to situations where there is no adequate alternative remedy), e.g., Conner v. Schnuck Markets, Inc., 906 F. Supp. 606, 614 (D. | 1 | 1 |
cluster 536143green1 sentence1998Kan. 1995). *201 Poison observed that Kansas federal district courts were split on whether the public policy exception should be extended to cover conduct protected under a statutoiy scheme, specifically, the Kansas Act Against Discrimination (KAAD), K.S.A. 44-1001 etseq. 895 F.2d at 709. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Coleman v. Safeway Stores, Inc.
green
2 sentences2016And "By 'public policy,' we have referred to a principle of law which holds that no citizen can lawfully do that which injures the public good." Coleman, 242 Kan. at 807 . 2004If the answer to (1) is yes, under the Kansas doctrine of alternative remedies — as articulated in Flenker, 266 Kan. 198 ; Coleman v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 242 Kan. 804 , 752 P.2d 645 (1988); or elsewhere — do the remedies available in tire Railway Labor Act (RLA), 45 U.S.C. §151 et seq., (2000) preclude an action in tort based on an employer s discharge of an employee in retaliation for the employee’s exercise of rights under FELA? | 2 | 2004–2016 |
Zimmerman v. Buchheit of Sparta, Inc.
green
1 sentence2019It is plaintiff's burden, in urging this court to create new rights of action or expand existing ones, to persuade the court of the need for such new or expanded rights." 18 In view of these uncertainties, the Zimmerman court declined to "open broad new avenues of litigation for other, less defined types of retaliatory conduct" than discharge "as an exception to the at-will employment doctrine." 164 Ill. 2d at 45-46 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Hysten v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Co.
green
1 sentence2019Co., 277 Kan. 551 , Syl. ¶ 1, 108 P.3d 437 (2004). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Brigham v. Dillon Companies, Inc.
green
2 sentences2016Campbell, 292 Kan. at 227 ; Brigham v. Dillon Companies, Inc., 262 Kan. 12 , 935 P.2d 1054 (1997). 2016Campbell, 292 Kan. at 227 ; Brigham v. Dillon Companies, Inc., 262 Kan. 12 , 935 P.2d 1054 (1997). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Herrera v. San Luis Central Railroad Co.
green
1 sentence2004Thus, the complaint sets forth a claim for retaliatory discharge based upon a public policy exception to the general doctrine of at-will employment, and the trial court erred in dismissing it.” 997 P.2d at 1241 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Flenker v. Willamette Industries, Inc.
green
1 sentence2004If the answer to (1) is yes, under the Kansas doctrine of alternative remedies — as articulated in Flenker, 266 Kan. 198 ; Coleman v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 242 Kan. 804 , 752 P.2d 645 (1988); or elsewhere — do the remedies available in tire Railway Labor Act (RLA), 45 U.S.C. §151 et seq., (2000) preclude an action in tort based on an employer s discharge of an employee in retaliation for the employee’s exercise of rights under FELA? | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Johnston v. Farmers Alliance Mutual Insurance
green
1 sentence1998Co., 218 Kan 543, 546, 545 P.2d 312 (1976): “[I]n the absence of a contract, expressed or implied, between an employee and his employer covering the duration of employment, the employment is terminable at the will of either party.” We have recognized public policy exceptions to the at-will employment doctrine. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.