"At will" employee may not be fired for bad cause
The Arizona Supreme Court has held that a trial court erred in granting summary judgment against a
staff nurse on the count alleging wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. The nurse, an "at-will"
employee, contended that she was fired for reasons that contravene public policy and without legitimate
cause related to job performance. She claimed that her termination was wrongful, and that damages are
recoverable under both tort and contract theories. The hospital argued that an "at-will" employee may be
fired for cause, without cause, or for "bad" cause. The court held that, in the absence of contractual
provision, such an employee may be fired for good cause or for no cause, but not for bad cause.
In the instant case, the discharged nurse refused to participate in activities which arguably would have
violated Arizona Revised Statutes covering indecent exposure. She claims that she was fired because of
this refusal. The court stated that the statute recognizes bodily privacy as a "citizen's social right" and
disagreed with the lower court's conclusion that a minor violation of the statute would not violate public
policy. The court said that the "nature of the act, and not its magnitude, is the issue. The legislature has
already concluded that acts fitting the statutory description contravene the public policy of this state".
The court explained that, to uphold the state's public policy by holding that termination for refusal to
commit an act which might violate the statute may provide the basis of a claim for wrongful discharge.
The court added that, in an at-will hiring, "we continue to recognize the presumption or to imply the
covenant of termination at the pleasure of either party, whether with or without cause. Firing for bad
cause--one against public policy articulated by constitutional, statutory, or decisional law--is not a right
inherent in the at-will contract, or in any other contract, even if expressly provided. Such a termination
violates rights guaranteed to the employee by law and is tortious".
Considering whether the trial court erred in determining as a matter of law that the terms of the
hospital's personnel policy manual were not part of the employment contract, the court stated that
reasonable persons could differ in the inferences and conclusion they would draw from the hospital's
published manual regarding disciplinary policy and procedure. Thus, there are questions of fact as to
whether this policy and procedure became a part of the fired nurse's employment contract. The court
determined that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on this issue.
The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment on the count seeking recovery for breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The court recognized the covenant as part of the contract,
but did not construe it to give either party to the contract rights, such as tenure, different from those for
which they contracted.
Lastly, the court reversed the grant of summary judgment against the fired nurse on the count alleging
tortious interference with a contractual relationship. The court stated that, on this record, there is a question
of fact with respect to whether the discharge was tortious and summary judgment was inappropriate.
Catherine Sue Wagenseller v Scottsdale Memorial Hospital et al, Arizona Supreme Court, No 17646-PR,
June 17, 1985.
REFERENCE: Catherine Sue Wagenseller v Scottsdale Memorial Hospital et al, Arizona Supreme Court,
No 17646-PR, June 17, 1985.