Burnham v. Karl & Gelb, P.C.
252 Conn. 153, 16 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1, 745 A.2d 178 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A common-law cause of action for wrongful discharge based on a violation of public policy is precluded when a statutory remedy exists to address the employer's alleged misconduct, even if the statutory remedy is not equivalent to a common-law tort action.
Facts:
- On July 6, 1993, Carole Burnham was hired as an office manager by Karl and Gelb, P.C., a dental practice.
- On November 5, 1993, Burnham filed an anonymous complaint with the Connecticut State Dental Association.
- The complaint alleged that her employers engaged in unsanitary and unhealthy practices in violation of the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA).
- On November 22, 1993, Karl and Gelb terminated Burnham's employment.
Procedural Posture:
- After her termination, Carole Burnham filed a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).
- OSHA administratively closed the complaint due to Burnham's lack of response.
- Burnham filed a multi-count complaint, including wrongful termination, against Karl and Gelb, P.C. in the Connecticut trial court.
- The defendants moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted.
- Burnham, as appellant, appealed the summary judgment to the Connecticut Appellate Court.
- The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of the defendants, Karl and Gelb, P.C.
- The Supreme Court of Connecticut granted Burnham's petition for certification to appeal.
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 the existence of a statutory remedy under the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) for retaliatory discharge preclude an at-will employee from bringing a common-law wrongful discharge claim based on a violation of public policy?
Opinions:
Majority - Sullivan, J.
Yes, the existence of a statutory remedy under OSHA precludes a common-law wrongful discharge claim. The public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine is narrow and applies only when an employee is 'otherwise without remedy.' Because the federal OSHA statute (29 U.S.C. § 660(c)) provides a specific administrative remedy for employees terminated in retaliation for reporting safety violations, the plaintiff was not without a remedy. The court rejected the argument that this statutory remedy was inadequate because it relied on the Secretary of Labor's discretion to bring an action; a statutory remedy need not be identical to a common-law claim to be preclusive. The court also noted that the plaintiff's claim failed under a state whistleblower statute because she reported to a private dental association, not a 'public body' as required by that law, and that even if she had, the state statute also provided its own remedy that would preclude a common-law action.
Dissenting - McDonald, C. J.
No, the existence of the OSHA remedy should not preclude the common-law claim. A common-law claim for wrongful discharge should only be precluded when an adequate statutory remedy exists. The remedy under OSHA is inadequate because it grants the Secretary of Labor sole discretion to bring an action, meaning a valid claim could go unaddressed due to external factors like budget constraints or political pressure. This process removes the employee's control over their own claim and fails to guarantee that the important public policy against retaliatory discharge will be vindicated. Therefore, because the statutory remedy is not a sufficient substitute for a direct cause of action, the common-law claim should be permitted.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine in Connecticut. It establishes that the mere existence of a legislative remedial scheme is sufficient to bar a common-law wrongful discharge claim, prioritizing statutory remedies over judicially created ones. The ruling signals that courts will defer to legislative frameworks even when those frameworks provide a less direct or certain path to relief for the employee, such as relying on the discretion of a government agency. This precedent makes it more difficult for employees to pursue wrongful discharge tort claims if any statute arguably provides an administrative or alternative remedy for the conduct at issue.
