Wed, 03/10/2021
With some notable exceptions, the law generally treats employees as “at will,” meaning they can be fired for any reason or no reason at all. Civil rights statutes such as Title VII prohibit discriminatory firings, meaning an employer may not terminate an employee because of their race, sex, national origin, religion, or for being a member of another protected class. Likewise, the Fair Labor Standards Act (and many equivalent state statutes) also prohibit an employer from firing an employee in retaliation for attempting to recover their lawful wages, such as by participating in a lawsuit.
Another narrow but important exception to the “at will” employment doctrine is for violations of public policy. The precise scope of this exception depends on the state you work in, but it generally prohibits employers from firing employees for refusing to perform illegal acts or for reporting the illegal acts of coworkers and employers. “The purpose of the public policy exception is to prevent employers from discharging employees, without consequence, for doing that which is beneficial to society.” Jaeger v. Res. for Human Dev., Inc., 605 S.W.3d 586, 591 (Mo. Ct. App. 2020).
An appeals court in Connecticut recently applied the public policy exception to the case of a notary fired who refused to prepare and notarize a false document. In that case, a law firm fired a paralegal for refusing to notarize an affidavit she knew to be false. Sieranski v. TJC Esq, 203 Conn. App. 75, 77 (2021). The paralegal brought a suit for wrongful termination alleging, in relevant part, that it violated the public policy embodied in Connecticut General Statutes § 3-94h and § 53a-157b, which respectively prohibit a notary from performing “any official action with intent to deceive or defraud” and any person from making false statements under oath. Id.
The trial court dismissed the paralegal’s suit for failure to state a claim under the public policy exception, but the court of appeals reversed. It explained that while the public policy exception to the “at will” doctrine is narrow and must be based on an “important and clearly articulated public policy,” id. at 82, the paralegal’s complaint met this standard. The Court found that “by knowingly including in the affidavit statements that the plaintiff also knew to be false, the plaintiff could have faced criminal exposure [under § 53a-157b] as an accessory to the affiant’s violation of the statute.” Id. at 85. In addition, it found that “the phrase ‘any official action’ [in § 3-94h] is very broad and would encompass the alleged action of the plaintiff in preparing an affidavit that she knew to be false” and then “assist[ing] an affiant in lying to a court of law.” Id. at 87. Finally, the court emphasized that notaries act “as public officials appointed by the Secretary of the State” and that “[p]ublic policy discourages a notary from engaging in the behavior alleged in the original complaint . . . because doing so would call into question the notary’s integrity as a public official.” Id. at 88.
If you think you have been wrongly terminated contact MSE at info@mselaborlaw.com.
