A fired employee's claim that the firing breached some public policy of the state. Abusive discharge claims are often brought when no claim for breach of contract or violation of a statute can be alleged. Instead of relying on an employment contract or an express statute that would prohibit termination, the employee attempts to show that the firing violated a general public policy espoused by the state.
See Wrongful termination (compare).
After discovering secret bank accounts held by her employer, Lisa reported her suspicions of fraudulent activity to the police. Since the state had no whistleblower act and Lisa was an at-will employee, her employer decided to fire her immediately.
Lisa sued her employer for wrongful termination and abusive discharge. The court quickly dismissed Lisa's claim for wrongful termination because she could not show any contract that was breached or any statute that was violated.
However, Lisa ended up winning on her claim of abusive discharge. After all, the state courts had clearly articulated a general public policy of protecting people who file police reports in good faith. By violating public policy, Lisa's employer became liable for abusive discharge even if it did not break any specific laws.
"Winston L. Parker appeals the district court's . . . dismissal of his complaint alleging abusive discharge under Maryland law. Parker contends that his termination from employment violated a clear mandate of public policy."
"Under Maryland's common law rule of employment at-will, either party to an employment contract of indefinite duration can legally terminate the contract at any time. Penske's discharge of Parker for suspected drug use does not contravene this policy . . . ."
"We decline to extend the definition of public policy reflected in Maryland case law, consistent with our recognition that either the Maryland legislature or the Maryland Court of Appeals are the proper bodies for extending the situations for which an action for abusive discharge may lie."
