§ 1.2.7 THE EROSION OF THE AT-WILL RULE IN ARIZONA.

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

§ 1.2.7 The Erosion of the At-Will Rule in Arizona. The erosion of the at-will rule was first noted by the Arizona Supreme Court in Larsen v. Motor Supply,⁴⁷ but the court declined to apply the emerging exceptions. The seeds of reform were sown in two other cases: Dimond v. Samaritan Health Service⁴⁸ and Daniel v. Magma Copper Co.⁴⁹

Employee Daniel sued his employer after he was discharged for insisting on bringing a medical malpractice case against the employer for a non-job related injury.⁵⁰ Daniel based his discharge claim on the emerging public-policy exception to the at-will rule. He claimed that Magma had violated Arizona's public policy, expressed in article XVIII, section 3 of the Arizona Constitution, which prohibits release of an employer's liability as a condition of employment, by requiring Daniel to sign a release in order to keep his job.⁵¹ Judge Howard, writing for the court of appeals, rejected the argument, saying that section 3 applied only to job-related injuries: "Mr. Daniel's injury was not job-related, and thus there can be no cause of action for wrongful discharge based upon this provision of the Arizona Constitution."⁵² Implicit in this statement was the recognition that termination in violation of public policy would support a cause of action, if the facts fit. The court of appeals also rejected Daniel's argument based on Monge's holding⁵³ that termination of an...