Ballard v. Siwak
2017 WL 2645605, 521 S.W.3d 296, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 630 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer cannot demand as a condition of continued employment that an at-will employee withdraw a valid full order of protection granted by a court, as such a demand violates the clear mandate of public policy in Missouri to protect victims of domestic violence.
Facts:
- Latoya Ballard began working for Rancho Manor Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center, LLC (Rancho Manor) as a nurse in September 2014.
- Later in September 2014, Rancho Manor also hired Jason Henderson (Henderson) as a floor nurse; Henderson and Ballard were previously in a romantic relationship and had two children together.
- On October 11, 2014, Henderson assaulted Ballard in her home, causing injuries to her and one of their children, leading to Henderson's arrest.
- Ballard obtained an ex parte (temporary) order of protection against Henderson and provided a copy to her direct supervisor and the Compliance Nurse at Rancho Manor, who stated they would arrange a schedule to prevent Ballard and Henderson from working together.
- Later in October 2014, Rancho Manor promoted Henderson to Assistant Director of Nursing, a supervisory position over all nurses, including Ballard.
- On October 23, 2014, a trial court entered a full, one-year order of protection against Henderson after a court hearing, which prohibited Henderson from entering Ballard's place of employment while she was present.
- Ballard again provided her direct supervisor with the full order of protection and expressed concerns about Henderson being her supervisor, requesting Rancho Manor to develop an action plan to prevent interaction, but no plan was ever provided.
- On December 23, 2014, Rancho Manor's Compliance Nurse requested that Ballard withdraw her full order of protection against Henderson, and when Ballard refused, the Compliance Nurse informed her that Rancho Manor would not place her on the work schedule until she withdrew the order, leading Ballard to leave her position.
Procedural Posture:
- Latoya Ballard filed a petition for damages against Rancho Manor, including Count I for wrongful discharge based on a violation of the public policy outlined in Missouri’s Adult Abuse Act (MAAA).
- Rancho Manor filed a motion to dismiss Count I of Ballard’s petition, asserting she failed to state a claim because the MAAA does not explicitly prohibit an employer from terminating an employee for obtaining an order of protection.
- The trial court (Respondent, the Honorable Ellen Levy Siwak) dismissed Count I, finding that Ballard failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
- Ballard filed a petition for writ of prohibition or mandamus with the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, seeking to compel the Respondent to vacate her order dismissing Count I and reinstate the cause for wrongful discharge.
- The Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, issued a preliminary order in prohibition.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employer's demand that an at-will employee withdraw a judicially granted full order of protection, issued after a finding of credible threat, as a condition of continued employment, fall under the public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine?
Opinions:
Majority - Gary M. Gaertner, Jr.
Yes, an employer's demand that an at-will employee withdraw a judicially granted full order of protection as a condition of continued employment falls under the public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine because it violates Missouri's clear mandate to protect victims of domestic violence. The court recognized that while Missouri generally adheres to the at-will employment doctrine, it also has a narrow public policy exception for terminations that violate a clear mandate of public policy, particularly when an employee acts in a manner that public policy encourages, as outlined in Fleshner v. Pepose Vision Inst. The court found that Missouri's Adult Abuse Act (MAAA), specifically Section 455.050, reflects a clear public policy encouraging victims of domestic violence to seek and maintain court protection through orders of protection. The MAAA's purpose, as recognized in State ex rel. Williams v. Marsh, is to provide additional protections to victims beyond existing remedies and remove roadblocks to obtaining such protection. The court reasoned that an employer's demand for an employee to withdraw such an order, especially after a trial court found a credible threat to the employee's physical safety and granted a full order of protection, directly contradicts this clear public policy. The public policy exception does not require a statute to explicitly prohibit employer actions, but rather that the employer's action runs contrary to a public policy 'reflected by' a statute. Furthermore, the court noted that the circumstances parallel the public policy protecting witnesses from reprisal, as withdrawing the order would require a court hearing where the employee would essentially be forced to give testimony contrary to their safety or risk perjury.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies and strengthens the public policy exception to Missouri's at-will employment doctrine, particularly for victims of domestic violence. It establishes that an employer cannot compel an employee to compromise their court-ordered physical safety as a condition of employment, even if the relevant statute doesn't explicitly prohibit such termination. The ruling provides a crucial layer of protection for employees who are victims of domestic abuse, ensuring that the legal system's efforts to safeguard them are not undermined by workplace demands. This decision also signals a broader interpretation of 'public policy reflected by a statute,' allowing for claims where employer actions run contrary to the spirit, rather than just the letter, of protective legislation.
