Abstract
The recent Utah Supreme Court decision of Peterson v. Browning will significantly affect the status of the at-will employment doctrine in Utah. The at-will doctrine presumes that, in most employment relationships, the employer may release an employee at any time for any reason. In Peterson, the court unanimously recognized a public policy limitation to the at-will doctrine. A majority also held that the cause of action generated by the public policy limitation sounds in tort rather than contract. Dissenting, Justice Zimmerman took issue with this latter holding. He asserted that creating a tort cause of action in this arena will invite unforeseen and dangerous consequences. He likened the tort remedy to using a meat cleaver for brain surgery, observing that "[t]he tool is capable of excising the offending part, but it poses a considerable risk of unpredictable collateral damage to surrounding healthy tissue and a consequent impairment of the entire organ." He then argued that a contract cause of action would be the more appropriate course. Justice Zimmerman stated that a contract remedy is akin to a scalpel, a much more precise tool for the operation. This Note argues that the underlying policies of contract and tort law, the nature of the public policy limitation on at-will employment, and the impact of the available remedies dictate that the action should lie in contract.
Recommended Citation
Sabey, Clark W.
(1993)
"Scalpels and Meat Cleavers: Carving
a Public Policy Limitation to the
At-Will Employment Doctrine,"
Utah Law Review: Vol. 1993:
No.
2, Article 7.
Available at:
https://dc.law.utah.edu/ulr/vol1993/iss2/7