business law
Nancy Johnston, appellant, brought suit against her employer, Del mar Distributing Co., Inc., appellee, alleging that her employment had been wrongfully terminated. Del Mar filed a motion for summary judgment in the trial court alleging that appellant’s pleadings failed to state a cause of action. After a hearing on the motion, the trial agreed with Del Mar and granted its motion for summary judgment.
The judgment of the trial is reversed and remanded for trial
Recently, the Texas Supreme Court, recognizing the need to amend the employment-at-will doctrine, invoked its judicial authority to create a very narrow common law exception to the doctrine. Sabine Pilot,687 S.W.2d at 735. In Sabine Pilot, the Texas Supreme Court was faced with a narrow issue for consideration, i.e., whether an allegation by an employee that he or she was discharged for refusing to perform an illegal act stated a cause of action. Id. The Court held that public policy, as expressed in the laws of this state and the United States which carry criminal penalties, requires a very narrow exception to the employment-at-will doctrine ... [t]hat narrow exception covers only the discharge of an employee for the sole reason that the employee refused to perform an illegal act. Id. (emphasis ours).
Furthermore, it is the opinion of this Court that the question of whether or not the requested act was in fact illegal is irrelevant to the determination of this case. We hold that where a plaintiff's employment is terminated for attempting to find out from a regulatory agency if a requested act is illegal, it is not necessary to prove that the requested act was in fact illegal. A plaintiff must, however, establish that she had a good faith belief that the requested act might be illegal, and that such belief was reasonable. Accordingly, we sustain appellant's third and fourth points of error.
Since, in the instant case, Del Mar did not specifically assert this issue in its motion for summary judgment, we
The judgment of the trial is reversed and remanded for trial
Recently, the Texas Supreme Court, recognizing the need to amend the employment-at-will doctrine, invoked its judicial authority to create a very narrow common law exception to the doctrine. Sabine Pilot,687 S.W.2d at 735. In Sabine Pilot, the Texas Supreme Court was faced with a narrow issue for consideration, i.e., whether an allegation by an employee that he or she was discharged for refusing to perform an illegal act stated a cause of action. Id. The Court held that public policy, as expressed in the laws of this state and the United States which carry criminal penalties, requires a very narrow exception to the employment-at-will doctrine ... [t]hat narrow exception covers only the discharge of an employee for the sole reason that the employee refused to perform an illegal act. Id. (emphasis ours).
Furthermore, it is the opinion of this Court that the question of whether or not the requested act was in fact illegal is irrelevant to the determination of this case. We hold that where a plaintiff's employment is terminated for attempting to find out from a regulatory agency if a requested act is illegal, it is not necessary to prove that the requested act was in fact illegal. A plaintiff must, however, establish that she had a good faith belief that the requested act might be illegal, and that such belief was reasonable. Accordingly, we sustain appellant's third and fourth points of error.
Since, in the instant case, Del Mar did not specifically assert this issue in its motion for summary judgment, we