179 Conn. 471, 427 A.2d 385
Emard H. Sheets began his employment with Teddy's Frosted Foods, Inc. in November 1973 as quality control director and later also served as operations manager until his termination in November 1977.1 During this period, he received periodic raises and bonuses in the course of his employment with the producer of frozen food products.2
Sheets noticed deviations from the specifications in the company's standards and labels, including the use of substandard vegetables and underweight meat components in the finished products.3 These deviations violated the express representations on the defendant's labeling.4
In May 1977, Sheets communicated in writing to the defendant about the use of substandard raw materials and underweight components and made recommendations for more selective purchasing, but those recommendations were ignored.5 His employment was terminated on November 3, 1977, with the stated reason being unsatisfactory performance of his duties.6
The termination actually occurred in retaliation for Sheets' efforts to ensure the defendant's products complied with applicable law relating to labeling and licensing.7 Sheets filed an amended complaint alleging wrongful discharge based on violation of an implied contract of employment, violation of public policy, and malicious discharge.8
The defendant filed a motion to strike the complaint as legally insufficient, which the trial court granted.9 Sheets declined to plead further, leading to the rendering of judgment for the defendant, and he then appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court.10
Whether an employer has a completely unlimited right to terminate the services of an employee whom it has hired for an indefinite term?11
Although contracts of employment for an indefinite term are generally terminable at will, an exception permits a cause of action for wrongful discharge where the discharge contravenes a clear mandate of public policy.12
No. The established facts show that Emard H. Sheets was terminated on November 3, 1977, in retaliation for his written communications in May 1977 regarding deviations from labeling specifications that violated the Connecticut Uniform Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, rather than for unsatisfactory performance.13 As quality control director and operations manager, Sheets had identified substandard vegetables and underweight meat components that caused the products to violate express labeling representations under General Statutes § 19-222, and his May 1977 written reports to management directly prompted the discharge despite the pretextual stated reason.14
An employer does not have a completely unlimited right to terminate the services of such an employee.15
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Loiselle, J.
Chief Justice Cotter dissented on the ground that the facts presented do not demonstrate a direct contravention of a clear statutory mandate sufficient to justify creating a new cause of action for retaliatory discharge.16 The plaintiff could have reported the violations anonymously to the commissioner of consumer protection to invoke the statute's enforcement mechanisms without jeopardizing his employment.17 Furthermore, the legislature had recently rejected bills that would have provided just cause protections for employees, indicating that such policy decisions should remain with the legislative branch rather than prompting judicial creation of a broad new tort.18
Whether the plaintiff stated a cause of action for breach of contract or for intentionally tortious conduct?19
A cause of action for wrongful discharge in tort exists when the discharge violates public policy as expressed in statutes like the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, particularly where the employee risks criminal sanctions by insisting on compliance.20
Yes. The established facts establish that Sheets' termination was in retaliation for his insistence that the defendant comply with the requirements of the Connecticut Uniform Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, thereby stating a claim for intentionally tortious conduct.21 Sheets highlighted violations that could expose both the company and himself to criminal penalties under the Act for misbranded food.22
The plaintiff stated a cause of action for intentionally tortious conduct.23
Whether the trial court erred in granting the defendant's motion to strike the complaint?24
On a motion to strike, the facts alleged in the complaint must be taken as true and construed most favorably to the pleader, and if those facts support a tort claim for wrongful discharge violating public policy, the motion must be denied.25
Yes. The established facts alleged in the amended complaint, including retaliatory termination for reporting labeling violations of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, support recognition of the public policy exception and therefore state a valid claim.26 The trial court should have denied the motion to strike because the complaint sufficiently alleged facts showing that the discharge contravened the public policy expressed in the Connecticut Uniform Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.27
The trial court erred in granting the defendant's motion to strike the complaint.28