Employers, and municipalities in particular, face expanding liability for decisions to discipline or terminate employees. Among the possible claims is “wrongful discharge.”
An employee may recover money damages from an employer for “wrongful discharge” if the employee can establish that (1) the termination was motivated by bad faith, retaliation or malice; and (2) the employee was terminated for performing an act that public policy would encourage, or for refusing to do something that public policy would condemn.
MacKenzie was a deputy sheriff for Rockingham County. While off duty, he and a fellow deputy sheriff, Stone, were out drinking when they were accosted by a man who appeared to be mentally unstable. MacKenzie identified himself as a deputy sheriff. After a scuffle the man took photographs of MacKenzie and Stone and fled. Neither MacKenzie nor Stone reported the incident to police. The next day the man showed the photos to police and claimed he had been assaulted by two plain-clothed police officers.
The defendant, Linehan, Rockingham County Sheriff, performed an internal investigation and suspended MacKenzie. MacKenzie had prior disciplinary incidents for assaulting a cab driver while intoxicated off duty and twice for disobeying orders. When questioned about the incident, MacKenzie refused to acknowledge that his conduct violated departmental rules and regulations governing conduct off duty. Linehan held a public hearing and terminated MacKenzie for violating the department’s “personal behavior rule.” After firing MacKenzie, Linehan blocked the door to the hearing room for 30 seconds and would not allow MacKenzie to leave while Linehan attempted to give further instructions.
MacKenzie sued Linehan and the County for wrongful discharge and false imprisonment. MacKenzie claimed that he was terminated as punishment for his refusal to concede that his conduct violated the “personal behavior rule.” Because MacKenzie believed that he had not violated the rule, he claimed that Linehan was in effect asking him to lie in order to save his job, in violation of a public policy that promotes truthfulness. The claims were tried to a jury, which awarded a verdict and damages of $500,000 in favor of MacKenzie. The trial judge, however, set aside the verdict and directed a verdict in favor of the defendants, ruling that no reasonable trier of fact could have found in favor of MacKenzie. MacKenzie appealed to the Supreme Court.
On appeal, the Supreme Court focused on the “public policy” aspect of the evidence. The Court agreed that “public policy generally supports truthfulness and that terminating an employee for refusing to lie to protect his job could implicate this public policy…” However, the Court held that this could not possibly apply in MacKenzie’s case because he had openly admitted engaging in the conduct for which he was fired. At most, MacKenzie may have been fired for disagreeing with Linehan about whether his conduct violated the personal conduct rule, but this disagreement was not an act that public policy would protect. “Public policy does not protect ‘an employee’s expression of disagreement with a management decision.’”
On the issue of false imprisonment, however, the Court held that the jury could reasonably have found for MacKenzie based on Linehan’s barring of the door, so the Court remanded for a new trial on that claim.