Section 4 Supreme Court of Missouri Jurisprudence

• Library: Employment Discrimination 2008

The Supreme Court of Missouri has not yet had occasion to expressly adopt a common-law wrongful discharge cause of action based on
a violation-of-public-policy exception to the employment-at-will doctrine. But in both Johnson v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.,
745 S.W.2d 661, 663 (Mo. banc 1988), and Luethans v. Washington University, 894 S.W.2d 169, 171 n.2 (Mo. banc 1995), the Supreme Court of Missouri acknowledged the recognition of the cause of action for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy that has been embraced by the decisions of each of the districts of the Missouri Court of Appeals. Both Faust v. Ryder Commercial Leasing & Services, 954 S.W.2d 383, 389 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997), and Brenneke v. Department of Missouri, Veterans of Foreign Wars of United States of America, 984 S.W.2d 134 (Mo. App. W.D. 1998), take care to point out the Supreme Court’s acknowledgment in Johnson and Luethans of the cause of action for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. Faust, 954 S.W.2d at 389; Brenneke, 984 S.W.2d at 138 n.2.

The facts presented by Johnson, 745 S.W.2d 661, and Luethans,
894 S.W.2d 169, did not provide the Supreme Court of Missouri with any occasion to expressly recognize the cause of action, much less to define and circumscribe its intended scope. Johnson only held that the provisions in an employee handbook that addressed various employee rights and disciplinary actions did not give rise to the creation of any contractual or other rights that would abrogate the employment-at-will doctrine. Johnson, 745 S.W.2d at 663; see alsoKirk v. Mercy Hosp. Tri-County, 851 S.W.2d 617, 619 (Mo. App. S.D. 1993) (concluding that the Supreme Court’s holding in Johnson did not conflict with the recognition of the cause of action of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, but was limited to the issue of whether a provision in a handbook created a binding and enforceable contract in light of the employment-at-will doctrine). In Johnson,
the Supreme Court noted that the plaintiff argued for the first
time on appeal that she was wrongfully discharged in violation
of public policy. The Court noted that in the cases cited by the plaintiff in support of the new argument on appeal, which included Smith v. Arthur C. Baue Funeral Home, 370 S.W.2d 249 (Mo. 1963), Boyle v. Vista Eyewear, Inc., 700 S.W.2d 859 (Mo. App. W.D. 1985), and Beasley v. Affiliated Hosp. Prods., 713 S.W.2d 557 (Mo. App. E.D. 1986), a constitutional provision, statute, or...