Pierce v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp.
417 A.2d 505, 84 N.J. 58 (1980)
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 only when the termination is contrary to a clear mandate of public policy derived from sources such as legislation, administrative regulations, or judicial decisions.
Facts:
- Dr. Grace Pierce, a medical doctor, was an at-will employee of Ortho Pharmaceutical Corporation (Ortho) as a Director of Medical Research.
- Dr. Pierce was the only medical doctor on a project team developing loperamide, a liquid drug for treating diarrhea in infants and the elderly.
- The proposed formulation of loperamide contained saccharin, a substance whose safety was the subject of medical controversy at the time.
- Initially, the project team, including Dr. Pierce, agreed the saccharin formulation was unsuitable for use in the United States.
- Following a directive from Ortho's Marketing Division, the project team, over Dr. Pierce's objection, decided to continue development of the saccharin formula.
- Dr. Pierce opposed continuing the work, believing that testing a potentially harmful substance on children or the elderly would violate her interpretation of the Hippocratic oath.
- After voicing her opposition to her supervisor, Dr. Pierce was removed from the loperamide project and asked to choose other assignments.
- Feeling she was being demoted as a result of her ethical stance, Dr. Pierce submitted a letter of resignation.
Procedural Posture:
- Dr. Grace Pierce sued Ortho Pharmaceutical Corporation in the New Jersey Law Division (trial court) for wrongful discharge.
- The trial court granted Ortho's motion for summary judgment, holding that as an employee at will, Pierce could be terminated for any reason.
- Pierce appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey.
- The Appellate Division reversed the trial court's summary judgment and remanded the case for a full trial.
- Ortho, as the petitioner, was granted certification to appeal to the Supreme Court of New Jersey.
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 termination of an at-will professional employee for refusing to perform a task that she believes is medically unethical, but that does not violate a clear mandate of public policy, give rise to a cause of action for wrongful discharge?
Opinions:
Majority - Pollock, J.
No. An at-will employee does not have a cause of action for wrongful discharge when the refusal to perform an act is based on personal morals or a general interpretation of a professional code of ethics, rather than a clear mandate of public policy. While the court recognizes for the first time a cause of action for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, the sources for such policy are limited to legislation, administrative rules, judicial decisions, and, in some instances, specific professional codes of ethics. Dr. Pierce's objection stemmed from a general, personal interpretation of the Hippocratic oath regarding a medically 'controversial' substance, not a violation of a specific statute, regulation, or ethical rule. Allowing an employee's personal conscience to dictate corporate policy would lead to chaos in research and business management. Since the drug was not yet being tested on humans and would require FDA approval, there was no imminent harm, and the dispute amounted to a difference of medical opinion, which is an insufficient basis for a wrongful discharge claim.
Dissenting - Pashman, J.
Yes. A professional employee should be permitted to proceed to trial to prove that her discharge for refusing to violate recognized professional ethical codes constitutes a wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. The majority correctly establishes a new cause of action but errs by granting summary judgment and denying the plaintiff the opportunity to prove her case under this new standard. Dr. Pierce's claim is supported by several specific and recognized codes of medical ethics, such as the Declaration of Helsinki and the Nuremberg Code, which proscribe conducting experiments with unnecessary risks. The majority's requirement that harm be imminent provides little protection to professionals, forcing them to wait until the last possible moment to object to unethical conduct. It is fundamentally unfair to announce a new legal principle but prevent the plaintiff who brought the case from having a chance to meet its standards at trial.
Analysis:
This landmark New Jersey case establishes the public policy exception to the employment-at-will doctrine, creating the tort of wrongful discharge. The decision attempts to balance employer prerogative with employee rights by allowing a cause of action but setting a high threshold for what constitutes 'public policy.' By requiring an employee to identify a clear mandate from an authoritative source, the court significantly narrows the exception, making it difficult for employees to succeed based on personal ethics or general professional standards. This case has been highly influential in shaping the wrongful discharge landscape, providing a framework that protects employers from frivolous lawsuits while carving out a narrow path for relief for employees fired for upholding specific, well-established public policies.
Unlock the full brief for Pierce v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp.