ILNews

Justices rule on constructive discharge issue

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court decided Tuesday that a claim for constructive retaliatory discharge falls within the state's public policy exemption to the employment-at-will doctrine.

The opinion, Brennan Baker and Moisture Management v. Tremco Inc. and Rick Gibson, No. 29S02-0902-CV-65, addressed only three of five issues Brennan Baker raised on appeal: constructive retaliatory discharge; whether a noncompetition agreement is unenforceable because Baker's new company actually competes with a subsidiary of his former employer, Tremco; and whether a statement from his former supervisor, Rick Gibson, was slanderous per se so as to create an actionable defamation claim.

Baker worked for Tremco selling construction and maintenance of roofing systems. After 13 years with the company, he resigned following a dispute regarding the company's sales and bidding practices, believing they were illegal. Baker then formed Moisture Management, which provided a service similar to one provided by a Tremco subsidiary.

Baker sued Tremco for a declaration the noncompete covenant he signed is unenforceable and also asserted claims for wrongful termination, defamation, and violation of Indiana's blacklisting statute. Tremco counterclaimed seeking enforcement of the covenant and said that Baker breached his contract. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Tremco and Gibson and issued injunctive relief against Baker and his new company.

Baker claimed when he told Tremco he didn't want to participate in the company's allegedly unlawful pricing practices, he was advised he would be fired, so instead, Baker resigned. The Supreme Court concluded that a constructive retaliatory discharge falls within the ambit of the narrowly drawn public policy exception to the employment-at-will doctrine.

The reason for the discharge must fit within the exception as recognized by Frampton v. Cent. Ind. Gas Co., 260 Ind. 249, 297, N.E.2d 425 (1973) and McClanahan v. Remington Freight Lines Inc., 514 N.E.2d 390, 392-93 (Ind. 1988); Baker's claim isn't within the ambit of the recognized exceptions, wrote Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard.

"At its heart, Baker's constructive discharge claim rest on his allegation that the roofing activities conducted under this statutory regime (Indiana Code Section 20-20-1-1) contravene other statutes about bidding public projects," he wrote. "We can be agnostic on such a question of statutory construction and still conclude as a matter of common law that it is not on par with the rights and obligations recognized as a basis for discharge complaints in Frampton and McClanahan."

Using Ohio law and Baker's deposition to settle the noncompete issue, the justices affirmed the trial court finding that Baker was competing for business he had been conducting for Tremco with his new company, Moisture Management.

Finally, the high court addressed Baker's claim that Gibson made defamatory statements per se when he told someone Baker had engaged in inappropriate sales practices. Gibson's statement was far too vague to conclude that they were "so obvious and naturally harmful that proof their injurious character can be dispensed with," wrote the chief justice.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT