About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


Case Citations July 2015 through February 2016 [1] (2015-2016)

handle is hein.ali/aliemploy0032 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 C.A.9, 2015. Com. (c) cit. in ftn., Rptr's Note quot. in ftn. (Citing com. (c) and Rptr's Note to com. (c) of § 5.01 of Prop. Final Draft, 2014, which are now com. (c) and Rptr's Note to com. (c) of the Official Text). Employee of subcontractor on a federal project brought an anti-retaliation action under the Energy Reorganization Act against employer and others, alleging that he was terminated from the project and reassigned to a nonsupervisory role after he raised environmental and safety concerns. The district court granted summary judgment for employer. Reversing that portion of the decision and remanding, this court held that employee introduced evidence sufficient to create a triable issue was to whether his whistleblowing activity was a contributing factor in the adverse-employment action employer took against him. The court noted that, although some state courts did not recognize adverse- employment claims that fell short of actual or constructive discharge, Restatement Third of Employment Law § 5.01 listed several courts that had explicitly sustained or indicated their approval of claims for wrongful demotion, and the courts that did allow such claims emphasized that they were analogous to wrongful-discharge claims. Tamosaitis v. URS Inc., 781 F.3d 468, 486. CHAPTER 8. EMPLOYEE OBLIGATIONS AND RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS § 8.06 Enforcement of Restrictive Covenants in Employment Agreements Wis.2015. Com. (e) quot. in sup.; Rptr's Notes to coms. (e) and (f) cit. in conc. op. (citing and quoting § 8.06 of Prop. Final Draft, 2014, which is now § 8.06 of the Official Text). Former employer that conditioned its at-will employees' continued employment on the signing of a restrictive covenant brought a breach-of-contract claim against former employee and employee's current employer, alleging that defendants violated the covenant. The trial court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment. This court reversed and remanded, holding that plaintiff's promise not to terminate its at-will employee constituted lawful consideration. In reaching its decision, the court, citing Restatement of Employment Law § 8.06, Comment e (Prop. Final Draft, 2014), pointed out that those jurisdictions that had ruled that a promise not to terminate an employee constituted lawful consideration for a restrictive covenant reasoned that employees obtained the expectation of continued employment. Runzheimer Intern., Ltd. v. Friedlen, 362 Wis.2d 100, 119-120, 136, 862 N.W.2d 879, 889, 896. A LIm For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.