About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Case Citations [1] (July 2019 - August 2020)

handle is hein.ali/aliemploy0038 and id is 1 raw text is: EMPLOYMENT LAW CHAPTER 5. THE TORT OF WRONGFUL DISCHARGE IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY § 5.01. Wrongful Discharge in Violation of Public Policy S.D.Iowa, 2019. Com. (e) and illus. 4 quot. in sup. Former employee brought a lawsuit against former employer, alleging that defendant violated state statutes regulating private administration of drug tests by failing to comply with its written policies when it required plaintiff to submit to a drug test more than thirty-two hours after an incident, and that he was wrongfully terminated when he refused to comply with the improper drug test. This court granted in part defendant's motion to dismiss, holding that plaintiff's common-law wrongful-discharge claim was barred, because the claim stemmed from a violation of a state statute, and the statute contained comprehensive and adequate provisions for resolving disputes arising from its violation. The court explained that, as set forth in Restatement of Employment Law § 5.01, the fact that the statute provided a private cause of action was the most important factor in determining whether plaintiff had an adequate remedy under the statute. Dickey v. Turner Construction Company, 421 F.Supp.3d 645, 656, 657. CHAPTER 8. EMPLOYEE OBLIGATIONS AND RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS § 8.01. Employee Duty of Loyalty to the Employer D.Colo.2019. Subsec. (a) quot. in sup. Staffing firm brought a claim for breach of the duty of loyalty against, among others, former employee, alleging that defendant solicited customers for a competitor while employed as plaintiff's human-resources specialist by sending plaintiff's onboarding paperwork with the competitor's letterhead to plaintiff's customers. This court granted defendant's motion to dismiss, holding that plaintiff failed to state a claim for breach of the duty of loyalty. The court explained that the factors set forth by Restatement Second of Agency § 393 and Restatement of Employment Law § 8.01(a) weighed heavily towards the finding that defendant did not act as plaintiff's agent, because the fact that she was plaintiff's employee did not determine that she was plaintiff's agent, and her duties primarily consisted of forwarding onboarding documents and taking orders from higher- ranked officers, which did not give her the level of discretion and independent authority necessary to find that she was an agent. DTC Energy Group, Inc. v. Hirschfeld, 420 F.Supp.3d 1163, 1175. COPYRIGHT ©2020 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most