wrongful discharge claim in Arkansas

2025He further noted that Arkansas, an at-will employment state, recognizes a wrongful-discharge claim only if the employee is “fired in violation of a well- recognized public policy of the state.” See Sterling Drug, Inc. v. Oxford, 294 Ark. 239 , 743 4 S.W.2d 380 (1988).

1996Transport, Inc., 310 Ark. 132 , 832 S.W.2d 823 (1992); Crain Indus., Inc. v. Cass, supra. In Sterling Drug, Inc. v. Oxford, 294 Ark. 239 , 743 S.W.2d 380 (1988), the supreme court held that, if an employee is discharged for exercising a statutory right, or for performing a duty required by law, or the reason for the discharge was in violation of some other well-established public policy, it would recognize the employee’s wrongful discharge claim as an exception to the employment-at-will doctrine.

2025He further noted that Arkansas, an at-will employment state, recognizes a wrongful-discharge claim only if the employee is “fired in violation of a well- recognized public policy of the state.” See Sterling Drug, Inc. v. Oxford, 294 Ark. 239 , 743 4 S.W.2d 380 (1988).

2019Marlow v. United Sys. of Ark., Inc., 2013 Ark. 460 .

1996Accord Webb v. HCA Health Servs. of Midwest, Inc., 300 Ark. 613 , 780 S.W.2d 571 (1989); Koenighain v. Schilling Motors, Inc., 35 Ark.

1996Transport, Inc., 310 Ark. 132 , 832 S.W.2d 823 (1992); Crain Indus., Inc. v. Cass, supra. In Sterling Drug, Inc. v. Oxford, 294 Ark. 239 , 743 S.W.2d 380 (1988), the supreme court held that, if an employee is discharged for exercising a statutory right, or for performing a duty required by law, or the reason for the discharge was in violation of some other well-established public policy, it would recognize the employee’s wrongful discharge claim as an exception to the employment-at-will doctrine.

1996Transport, Inc., 310 Ark. 132 , 832 S.W.2d 823 (1992); Crain Indus., Inc. v. Cass, supra. In Sterling Drug, Inc. v. Oxford, 294 Ark. 239 , 743 S.W.2d 380 (1988), the supreme court held that, if an employee is discharged for exercising a statutory right, or for performing a duty required by law, or the reason for the discharge was in violation of some other well-established public policy, it would recognize the employee’s wrongful discharge claim as an exception to the employment-at-will doctrine.

1988In Garibaldi v. Lucky Food Stores, Inc., 726 F.2d 1367 (9th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1099 , 105 S.Ct. 2319 , 85 L.Ed. 839 (1985), an employee alleged that he had been fired for reporting a shipment of adulterated milk to health authorities after his supervisors ordered him to deliver it.

1988In Garibaldi v. Lucky Food Stores, Inc., 726 F.2d 1367 (9th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1099 (1985), an employee alleged that he had been fired for reporting a shipment of adulterated milk to health authorities after his supervisors ordered him to deliver it.

1988In Garibaldi v. Lucky Food Stores, Inc., 726 F.2d 1367 (9th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1099 , 105 S.Ct. 2319 , 85 L.Ed. 839 (1985), an employee alleged that he had been fired for reporting a shipment of adulterated milk to health authorities after his supervisors ordered him to deliver it.

1988In Garibaldi v. Lucky Food Stores, Inc., 726 F.2d 1367 (9th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1099 , 105 S.Ct. 2319 , 85 L.Ed. 839 (1985), an employee alleged that he had been fired for reporting a shipment of adulterated milk to health authorities after his supervisors ordered him to deliver it.

1988In Garibaldi v. Lucky Food Stores, Inc., 726 F.2d 1367 (9th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1099 (1985), an employee alleged that he had been fired for reporting a shipment of adulterated milk to health authorities after his supervisors ordered him to deliver it.