Missouri Real Estate Lawyer

The Missouri wrongful termination doctrine is an exception to Missouri’s “at-will” employment doctrine.

In Missouri, an employer can generally fire an employee for any reason, or for no reason. Likewise, employees in Missouri can leave an employer at any time, for any reason, or for no reason. This is called the “at-will” employment doctrine. There are exceptions to this doctrine. One exception is the Missouri wrongful termination doctrine.

Missouri Wrongful Termination Doctrine

Under the Missouri wrongful termination doctrine, an employer cannot fire an employee for reporting certain wrongdoing by the employer. This is also commonly referred to as whistleblowing or the public policy exception to the at-will doctrine. Public policy in Missouri generally protects employees who complain to supervisors or to government officials about wrongdoing by the employer. Wrongdoing does not necessarily include whatever the employee, or the judge for that matter, thinks is intuitively wrong or illegal. Rather, the wrongful conduct of the employer must be identified by Missouri law or regulation.

Missouri Wrongful Termination Doctrine History

The Missouri wrongful termination cause of action was first articulated by the Missouri appeals court in 1985 and then later supported by the Missouri Supreme Court in three cases decided by it in 2010. In the 1985 appeals court case, Boyle v. Vista Eyewear, Inc., Boyle was employed by Vista Eyewear, Inc., which manufactured eyeglass lenses. Vista Eyewear, Inc. fired Boyle after she told OSHA and FDA officials that Vista Eyewear, Inc. was selling lenses without conducting certain tests on the lenses that were required by law. Boyle sued Vista Eyewear, Inc. for wrongful termination.

The trial court dismissed her lawsuit on the grounds that Missouri recognized no cause of action for wrongful termination. However, the appeals court looked at the laws of other states and concluded that Missouri employees may sue for wrongful termination if the employee was fired for refusing to violate the law or for reporting a wrong identified by law or regulation.

In Fleshner v. Pepose Vision Institute, P.C. (2010), the Missouri Supreme Court held that Missouri employees are protected under the Missouri wongful termination doctrine for reporting violations, even if the employee, in some circumstances, was not personally affected by the violation. In that case, Fleshner was employed by Pepose Vision Institute, P.C. Fleshner was fired after providing information to the U.S. Department of Labor about the payment of overtime wages by Pepose Vision Institute, P.C. Fleshner sued Pepose Vision Institute, P.C. for wrongful termination, and the jury awarded her $125,000 in damages to Fleshner, which was upheld by the Missouri Supreme Court.

In the second Missouri Supreme Court case supporting the Missouri wrongful termination doctrine, Keveny v. Missouri Military Academy (2010), a teacher noticed unusual bruising on the arm of a student and suspected that the student was being abused. The teacher reported the bruises to three of his supervisors, who told him that his job would be in jeopardy if he reported the suspected abuse to the Missouri Department of Family Services. The teacher was fired after insisting that the abuse must be reported, as is required by Missouri law. The Missouri Supreme Court held that the teacher’s petition alleging these facts stated a cause for wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

In the third Missouri Supreme Court case, Margiotta v. Christian Hospital NE NW (2010), Margiotta was employed by the hospital as a CT scan technician. He claimed that he was fired after reporting patient safety violations at the hospital. However, the Missouri Supreme Court held that the language of the regulations relied upon by Margiotta were too vague to support his claim under the Missouri wrongful termination doctrine.

Violation of Law

So, although Missouri recognizes a cause of action for wrongful termination, or whistleblowing, the likelihood of winning a case under the Missouri wrongful termination doctrine depends on the language of the law or regulation that was violated by the employer and not simply on whether the employee believes that the conduct of the employer was wrong or illegal.

This article is for general informational purposes only, and it is not intended as legal advice. Sewell Law provides experienced representation in real estate, business, and litigation. Please contact Michael Sewell at (314) 942-3232 or at michael@sewelllaw.net to discuss your legal matter. 

The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.

© 2019 Sewell Law, LC