Published on: Friday, July 22, 2011

By Tom Ryan

In these times of high unemployment, many people feel that any job they can find is very valuable. Most employees, at least in the private sector, have no particular contract of employment or promise of a job for a given time frame. Whether they can be fired for any reason, or none at all that the employer chooses to give, has evolved over time. This was illustrated by a case like week from Maryland’s highest court, called Parks v. Alpharma, Inc.

According to the Court of Appeals’ opinion, Ms. Parks was an employee in Maryland for a pharmaceutical company. She had no employment contract, and was fired from her job. She then filed suit against her former employer, claiming that she was fired “in violation of public policy” allegedly for her complaining about the employer’s supposedly misleading marketing of a pain relief drug. The trial judge dismissed her case, and her appeal was accepted by the Court of Appeals.

The Court reviewed the history of “at will” employment. Where there is no contract of employment for a definite term, the employment generally can be terminated at the pleasure of either employer or employee without there being a claim for breach of any employment contract. This was seen in the law as supporting the right to manage a business as the employer sees fit, with the employee likewise having freedom to seek other employment if she wishes.

Over time, exceptions to the “at will” doctrine have become accepted. Prohibitions against discrimination in employment are not part of civil rights statutes and other laws, so that employers cannot fire an employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, marital status, or because of a mental or physical handicap.

The Court noted that Maryland now has a “public policy” exception to the right to fire an employee, where there is a sufficiently clear mandate of public policy whose violation can support a claim. Thus teachers cannot be fired for fulfilling their statutory duty to report suspected child abuse, an employee cannot be terminated for refusing to engage in criminal activity, or for making a lawful worker’s compensation claim.

In this case, the Court agreed that Parks had articulated no such clear public policy. Her claims that misleading marketing violated consumer protection statutes was too vague, and there was no proof of an FDA violation for labeling of the medicine to support a claim.

.

Thomas Patrick Ryan is a partner in the Rockville law firm of McCarthy Wilson, which specializes in civil litigation.