Rose v. Anderson Hay & Grain Co.

¶38 (dissenting) — I dissent because Charles Rose does not satisfy the jeopardy element of the tort of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. To reach a different result, the majority overturns precedent and creates a new analytical framework for the tort. I would proceed according to our precedent and affirm the Court of Appeals.

¶39 The issue in this case is whether Rose’s claim of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy should be dismissed because he cannot satisfy the jeopardy element of the claim.5 I would hold that the existence of an adequate alternative statutory…