In a recent widely circulated story from New York it was reported that an at-will employee of a private firm was fired after being outed on social media for running a white supremacist group. A variety of experts opined that the employee likely would have no remedy without a union contract and no state action in the employer’s decision. This is the common conclusion of experts who comment on such cases.

Without endorsing the employee’s objectionable activities, of course, we should point out that in New Jersey and several other states, there is a potential remedy in such cases. The common-law doctrine of “employment-at-will” provided that an at-will employee could be fired (or resign) for any reason, as long as the firing did not contravene a law such as an anti-discrimination statute. In 1980, the New Jersey Supreme Court modified that doctrine, holding that an employee could not be fired for a reason that violated a “clear mandate of public policy.” Pierce v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]