McClanahan v. Remington Freight Lines, Inc.
2 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1888, 517 N.E.2d 390, 1988 Ind. LEXIS 8 (1988)
Rule of Law:
An exception to the employment-at-will doctrine exists when an employee is discharged for refusing to commit an illegal act for which the employee would be personally liable.
Facts:
- Appellant McClanahan was hired by Appellee Remington Freight Lines as an interstate truck driver under an indefinite, at-will employment arrangement.
- In March 1982, Remington's safety director, Barbour, instructed McClanahan to transport a load of freight weighing 78,000 pounds through Illinois.
- At that time, Illinois law imposed a maximum weight limit of 75,000 pounds for trucks on state roads.
- McClanahan informed Barbour that the truck was too heavy to legally travel the designated route through Illinois.
- Barbour told McClanahan to drive the route anyway, stating that Remington would pay any fines and that McClanahan likely would not get caught due to a lack of permanent scales.
- McClanahan refused to drive the overweight load because it violated the law.
- Consequently, Barbour informed McClanahan that he was no longer employed by Remington, treating the refusal as a 'voluntary quit' per the employee manual.
Procedural Posture:
- McClanahan filed for unemployment benefits; the Review Board ruled he was discharged for refusing an illegal act.
- McClanahan sued Remington and Barbour in state trial court for wrongful discharge.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants (Remington and Barbour) and denied McClanahan's motion.
- McClanahan appealed to the Indiana Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court regarding the wrongful discharge claim but affirmed regarding collateral estoppel.
- Remington and Barbour petitioned the Supreme Court of Indiana for transfer (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 an employee at will have a cause of action for wrongful discharge against an employer who terminates them for refusing to commit an illegal act that would subject the employee to personal liability?
Opinions:
Majority - Shepard
Yes, an employee discharged for refusing to commit an illegal act for which they would be personally liable has a valid claim for wrongful discharge constitutes a public policy exception to the at-will doctrine. The Court acknowledged the general rule of employment at will but noted that exceptions are necessary to avoid harsh results that contravene public policy. Citing Frampton v. Central Indiana Gas Co., the Court reasoned that if an employee cannot be fired for exercising a statutory right (like filing for worker's compensation), they certainly should not be fired for fulfilling a statutory duty by refusing to break the law. The Court emphasized that if McClanahan had followed orders, he would have been personally liable for criminal fines and damages. Denying legal recourse would encourage criminal conduct by pressuring employees to break the law out of financial necessity.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expands the 'public policy' exception to the at-will employment doctrine in Indiana. Before this case, the exception was largely limited to retaliatory discharge for filing worker's compensation claims (the Frampton rule). By ruling that employees cannot be fired for refusing to commit illegal acts, the court prevents employers from using their economic power to coerce employees into criminal behavior. The ruling effectively creates a shield for whistleblowers and conscientious employees, aligning employment law with the state's penal code. Additionally, the case clarifies the limits of collateral estoppel regarding administrative agency decisions, establishing that informal unemployment hearings generally do not preclude relitigation of the cause of discharge in civil court due to the lack of procedural rigor.
