Phung v. Waste Management, Inc.
Ohio Supreme Court
1DissentClifford F. Brown, J.
The court of appeals, by carving a public policy exception to the doctrine of at-will employment, would have had Ohio join what is already a clear majority of states which have carved similar exceptions, including the five states which border Ohio.1 Today, *105this court refuses to join that enlightened majority. I must vigorously disseht.
As noted in Judge Douglas’ well-reasoned opinion below, the doctrine of at-will employment developed in a laissez-faire climate that encouraged industrial growth and strongly approved an employer’s right to control his own business. That right necessarily…
Also in this document: Concurring in part, dissenting in part.
2Cases cited43 opinions
- Kelsay v. Motorola, Inc.Illinois Supreme Court · 1978
- Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co.California Supreme Court · 1980
- Palmateer v. International Harvester Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1981
- Geary v. United States Steel Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
- Fortune v. National Cash Register Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1977
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.