Brockmeyer v. Dun & Bradstreet
335 N.W.2d 834, 1983 Wisc. LEXIS 2928, 113 Wis.2d 561 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An at-will employee has a cause of action for wrongful discharge if the termination violates a fundamental and well-defined public policy as evidenced by an existing constitutional or statutory provision.
Facts:
- Charles J. Brockmeyer was a district manager for Dun & Bradstreet without a formal employment contract.
- Company superiors learned Brockmeyer, who was married but separated, vacationed with his secretary and had smoked marijuana in the presence of company personnel.
- After being confronted, Brockmeyer apologized and was warned that he would be terminated or reassigned if conditions did not improve.
- At his superiors' direction, Brockmeyer obtained the resignation of his secretary.
- The former secretary then filed a sex discrimination claim against Dun & Bradstreet.
- Brockmeyer's superiors repeatedly asked him to submit a written report about the events leading to the secretary's resignation.
- Brockmeyer refused to provide the written report, fearing he would be made a scapegoat, but stated he would tell the truth if called to testify in a legal proceeding.
- Three days after Dun & Bradstreet settled the sex discrimination claim, the company discharged Brockmeyer.
Procedural Posture:
- Charles J. Brockmeyer sued Dun & Bradstreet in the circuit court for Milwaukee county, alleging wrongful discharge.
- A jury at the trial court level found that Dun & Bradstreet had wrongfully discharged Brockmeyer and awarded him compensatory and punitive damages.
- Dun & Bradstreet, as appellant, appealed the verdict to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.
- The court of appeals reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the complaint, finding the evidence insufficient to sustain the claim.
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court then granted review of the court of appeals' decision.
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 employee who is hired for an indefinite term have a cause of action for wrongful discharge when the discharge violates a fundamental and well-defined public policy?
Opinions:
Majority - Steinmetz, J.
Yes, an employee has a cause of action for wrongful discharge when the discharge is contrary to a fundamental and well-defined public policy as evidenced by existing law. The court rejected adopting a broad exception for terminations made in 'bad faith' as too amorphous, instead opting for a narrow public policy exception. To state a claim, a plaintiff must identify a specific constitutional or statutory provision that the discharge contravenes. This creates a contract action where remedies are limited to reinstatement and backpay. Applying this new rule, the court found that although Brockmeyer’s discharge may have been in bad faith, he failed to demonstrate that it violated any specific, fundamental public policy expressed in the constitution or a statute; therefore, his claim fails.
Concurring - Day, J.
While concurring in the result to dismiss Brockmeyer's complaint, this opinion disagrees with the majority's decision to create a new judicial exception to the employment-at-will doctrine. The legislature, not the judiciary, is the proper body to create protections and remedies for wrongful discharge. This new cause of action, though narrow, will open a 'Pandora's Box' of litigation, inviting meritless claims and burdening employers, particularly small businesses, with the high cost of defending them.
Analysis:
This case is significant for judicially adopting a narrow public policy exception to the traditional employment-at-will doctrine in Wisconsin. By rejecting a broader 'good faith' standard, the court balanced the need for employee protection against the employer's need for managerial discretion. The decision established a high bar for wrongful discharge claims, requiring plaintiffs to ground their arguments in specific constitutional or statutory provisions, thereby preventing claims based on vague notions of unfairness. This framework has influenced how other jurisdictions have approached modifications to the at-will doctrine.
