Johnston v. Del Mar Distributing Co.
776 S.W.2d 768, 1989 WL 99931, 1989 Tex. App. LEXIS 2250 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer is prohibited from terminating an employee for making a good faith inquiry into whether a requested act is illegal. This protection is a necessary extension of the public policy exception to the employment-at-will doctrine that prohibits firing an employee for refusing to perform an illegal act.
Facts:
- Nancy Johnston was an employee of Del Mar Distributing Co., Inc.
- As part of her duties, Del Mar instructed Johnston to package a semi-automatic weapon for shipment.
- Del Mar directed Johnston to mislabel the package's contents as 'fishing gear'.
- Johnston was required to sign her name to the shipping documents.
- Concerned that her actions might violate the law, Johnston contacted the U.S. Treasury Department's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms for advice.
- A few days after contacting the Bureau, Del Mar terminated Johnston's employment.
- Johnston alleged she was fired solely in retaliation for her inquiry to the Bureau.
Procedural Posture:
- Nancy Johnston brought a suit for wrongful termination against her employer, Del Mar Distributing Co., Inc., in a Texas trial court.
- Del Mar filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Johnston’s pleadings failed to state a valid cause of action.
- The trial court granted Del Mar’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing Johnston's case.
- Johnston, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Texas Court of Appeals, with Del Mar as the appellee.
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 public policy exception to the employment-at-will doctrine, which protects an employee from termination for refusing to perform an illegal act, also protect an employee who is discharged for making a good faith inquiry into the legality of that act?
Opinions:
Majority - Benavides, J.
Yes. The public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine that protects an employee from termination for refusing to perform an illegal act necessarily also protects an employee who is fired for making a good faith inquiry into the legality of a requested act. The court reasoned that the exception established in Sabine Pilot Service, Inc. v. Hauck would be rendered ineffective if employers could terminate employees for the preliminary step of investigating whether a required act is, in fact, illegal. To require an employee to refuse an act, they must first be able to determine its legality without fear of reprisal. To hold otherwise would force an employee to choose between risking termination for asking questions or risking criminal liability for performing a potentially illegal act in ignorance. This decision is not a creation of a new exception but an enforcement of the existing one, as it is implicitly necessary for the Sabine Pilot rule to have meaningful effect.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expands the narrow public policy exception to Texas's employment-at-will doctrine. By extending protection from the act of refusal to the act of inquiry, the court prevents employers from preemptively terminating employees who express concern over potentially illegal activities. This lowers the bar for an employee to claim wrongful termination, as they no longer need to wait for a direct command to commit an illegal act and then refuse it. The ruling shifts the legal focus from the ultimate illegality of the employer's requested action to the reasonableness and good faith of the employee's belief that it might be illegal, thereby strengthening protections for conscientious employees.
Unlock the full brief for Johnston v. Del Mar Distributing Co.