Murphy v. American Home Products Corp.
| Decision Date | 29 March 1983 |
| Citation | 461 N.Y.S.2d 232,448 N.E.2d 86,58 N.Y.2d 293 |
| Parties | , 448 N.E.2d 86, 115 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 4953, 31 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 782, 31 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 33,607, 98 Lab.Cas. P 55,407 Joseph MURPHY, Appellant, v. AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS CORPORATION, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
This court has not and does not now recognize a cause of action in tort for abusive or wrongful discharge of an employee; such recognition must await action of the Legislature. Nor does the complaint here state a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, for prima facie tort, or for breach of contract. These causes of action were, therefore, properly dismissed. Appellant's cause of action based on his claim of age discrimination, however, should be reinstated. The period of time for commencement of a judicial action for unlawful discrimination in employment is the three-year period of CPLR 214 (subd. 2) and not the one-year period prescribed in subdivision 5 of section 296 of the Executive Law.
Plaintiff, Joseph Murphy, was first employed by defendant, American Home Products Corp., in 1957. He thereafter served in various accounting positions, eventually attaining the office of assistant treasurer, but he never had a formal contract of employment. On April 18, 1980, when he was 59 years old, he was discharged.
Plaintiff claims that he was fired for two reasons: because of his disclosure to top management of alleged accounti improprieties on the part of corporate personnel and because of his age. As to the first ground, plaintiff asserts that his firing was in retaliation for his revelation to officers and directors of defendant corporation that he had uncovered at least $50 million in illegal account manipulations of secret pension reserves which improperly inflated the company's growth in income and allowed high-ranking officers to reap unwarranted bonuses from a management incentive plan, as well as in retaliation for his own refusal to engage in the alleged accounting improprieties. He contends that the company's internal regulations required him to make the disclosure that he did. He also alleges that his termination was carried out in a humiliating manner.
As to the second basis for his termination, plaintiff claims that defendant's top financial officer told him on various occasions that he wished he could fire plaintiff but that, because to do so would be illegal due to plaintiff's age, he would make sure by confining him to routine work that plaintiff did not advance in the company. Plaintiff also asserts that a contributing factor to his dismissal was that he was over 50 years of age.
On April 14, 1981, plaintiff filed a summons in the present action with the New York County Clerk pursuant to CPLR 203 (subd. [b], par. 5). The summons described the action as a suit "to recover damages for defendant's wrongful and malicious termination of plaintiff's employment". Another summons and a complaint were served on defendant on June 5, 1981. The complaint set up four causes of action. As his first cause of action, plaintiff alleged that his discharge "was wrongful, malicious and in bad faith" and that defendant was bound "not to dismiss its employees for reasons that are contrary to public policy". In his second cause of action, plaintiff claimed that his dismissal "was intended to and did cause plaintiff severe mental and emotional distress thereby damaging plaintiff". His third claim was based on an allegation that the manner of his termination "was deliberately and viciously insulting, was designed to and did embarrass and humiliate plaintiff and was intended to and did cause plaintiff severe mental and emotional distress thereby damaging plaintiff". In h fourth cause of action, plaintiff asserted that, although his employment contract was of indefinite duration, the law imposes in every employment contract "the requirement that an employer shall deal with each employee fairly and in good faith". On that predicate he alleged that defendant's conduct in stalling his advancement and ultimately firing him for his disclosures "breached the terms of its contract requiring good faith and fair dealing toward plaintiff and damaged plaintiff thereby". Plaintiff demanded compensatory and punitive damages.
Following a stipulation extending defendant's time to answer or to move with respect to the complaint, defendant moved on July 27, 1981 to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that it failed to state a cause of action and that the fourth cause of action was barred by the Statute of Frauds. Defendant contended that plaintiff was an at-will employee subject to discharge at any time, that New York does not recognize a tort action for abusive or wrongful discharge, and that the prima facie tort and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims were unavailable and insufficient.
On October 16, 1981, plaintiff served an amended complaint with his opposing papers on the motion. The amended complaint, among other things, added a fifth cause of action, alleging that plaintiff was denied advancement due to his age which constituted "illegal employment discrimination on the basis of age in violation of New York Executive Law § 296".
Special Term denied defendant's motion to dismiss the wrongful discharge tort claim but granted the motion as to the causes of action for breach of contract, prima facie tort, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and age discrimination. Although the court noted that New York had not yet adopted the doctrine of abusive discharge, it declined to put plaintiff out of court before he had had opportunity by means of disclosure procedures to elicit evidence which might put his claim on firmer footing. Special Term held the cause of action for breach of contract barred by the Statute of Frauds. As to the second and third causes of action the court ruled that plaintiff's allegations as to the manner of his dismissal were not sufficient support causes of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress or for prima facie tort. Finally, applying the one-year period set out in the Executive Law ( § 297, subd. 5), Special Term ruled that plaintiff's age discrimination claim was untimely because the amended complaint was served over a year after his dismissal and could not be related back to the original complaint because "[n]othing in either summons or the first complaint gave notice to the defendant of the age discrimination cause of action" (112 Misc.2d 507, 511, 447 N.Y.S.2d 218).
On cross appeals, the Appellate Division modified, to the extent of granting the motion to dismiss the first cause of action, and otherwise affirmed the order of Special Term. The court noted that it does not appear that New York recognizes a cause of action for abusive discharge and that, in any event, plaintiff had failed to show the type of violation of penal law or public policy that has been held sufficient in other jurisdictions to support a cause of action for abusive discharge. According to the appellate court, plaintiff's charge that the corporation's records were not kept in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles appeared to involve a dispute over a matter of judgment as to the proper accounting treatment to be given the terms involved and not a dispute over false book entries. As to the other causes of action, the court ruled that Special Term had properly dismissed them either for failure to state a cause of action, failure to comply with the Statute of Frauds or, regarding the age discrimination claim, failure to assert it within the statutory time period (88 A.D.2d 870, 451 N.Y.S.2d 770). We modify the order of the Appellate Division from which plaintiff appeals by reinstating the fifth cause of action for age discrimination and otherwise affirm.
With respect to his first cause of action, plaintiff urges that the time has come when the courts of New York should recognize the tort of abusive or wrongful discharge of an at-will employee. To do so would alter our long-settled rule that where an employment is for an indefinite term it is presumed to be a hiring at will which may be freely terminated by either party at any time for any reason or even for no reason (see Martin v. New York Li Ins. Co., 148 N.Y. 117, 42 N.E. 416; Parker v. Borock, 5 N.Y.2d 156, 182 N.Y.S.2d 577, 156 N.E.2d 297). Plaintiff argues that a trend has emerged in the courts of other States to temper what is perceived as the unfairness of the traditional rule by allowing a cause of action in tort to redress abusive discharges. He accurately points out that this tort has elsewhere been recognized to hold employers liable for dismissal of employees in retaliation for employee conduct that is protected by public policy. Thus, the abusive discharge doctrine has been applied to impose liability on employers where employees have been discharged for disclosing illegal activities on the part of their employers (Sheets v. Teddy's Frosted Foods, 179 Conn. 471, 427 A.2d 385; Palmateer v. International Harvester Co., 85 Ill.2d 124, 52 Ill.Dec. 13, 421 N.E.2d 876; Harless v. First Nat. Bank in Fairmont, 246 S.E.2d 270 [W.Va.1978] ), where employees have been terminated due to their service on jury duty (Nees v. Hocks, 272 Or. 210, 536 P.2d 512), and where employees have been dismissed because they have filed workers' compensation claims (Kelsay v. Motorola, Inc., 74 Ill.2d 172, 23 Ill.Dec. 559, 384 N.E.2d 353; Frampton v. Central Ind. Gas Co., 260 Ind. 249, 297 N.E.2d 425). Plaintiff would have this court adopt this emerging view. We decline his invitation, being of the opinion that such a significant change in our law is best left to the Legislature.
Those jurisdictions that have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Foley v. Interactive Data Corp.
...Federal Life Ins. Co. (1982) 109 Ill.App.3d 596, 65 Ill.Dec. 143, 161, 440 N.E.2d 998, 1006; Murphy v. American Home Products Corp. (1983) 58 N.Y.2d 293, 461 N.Y.S.2d 232, 238, 448 N.E.2d 86, 92.) If we discount Huber as based on California law, the count stands at four-to-three. The majori......
-
Minebea Co., Ltd. v. Papst, Civil Action No. 97-0590 (PLF).
...An implied term barring such suit clearly would be inconsistent with this express term. See Murphy v. Amer. Home Prods. Corp., 58 N.Y.2d 293, 304-05, 461 N.Y.S.2d 232, 448 N.E.2d 86 (N.Y.1983) (where employment contract was at-will, it would be "incongruous" and "inconsistent with other ter......
-
Cucchi v. New York City Off-Track Betting Corp., No. 91 Civ. 5624 (KC).
...of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.'" Murphy v. American Home Prod. Corp., 58 N.Y.2d 293, 461 N.Y.S.2d 232, 236, 448 N.E.2d 86 (1983) (quoting Rest. Second Torts § 46(1), comment d. The plaintiff in Murphy alleged that he was fired ......
-
Nuance Commc'ns, Inc. v. Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp.
...1992) (quoting Geler v. Nat'l Westminster Bank USA, 770 F. Supp. 210, 215 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) (citing Murphy v. Am. Home Prods. Corp., 58 N.Y.2d 293, 461 N.Y.S.2d 232, 448 N.E.2d 86, 91 (1983) )). To be sure, the implied covenant "cannot be construed so broadly as effectively to nullify other e......
-
New York's Highest Court Re-Affirms At-Will Employment Rule
...in the individual contract of employment, an employer's right at any time to terminate an employment at will remains unimpaired." Murphy, 58 N.Y.2d 293, 305 The only time the New York State Court of Appeals has retreated from the employment-at-will doctrine was its decision in Wieder. In Wi......
-
Targeted hate speech and the first amendment: how the supreme court should have decided Snyder.
..."characterized by 'malice'" as insufficient for IIED unless the conduct is "extreme and outrageous"); Murphy v. Am. Home Prods. Corp., 448 N.E.2d 86, 91 (N.Y. 1983) (explaining malice inherent in strict standard of outrageous behavior); Leibowitz v. Bank Leumi Trust Co., 548 N.Y.S.2d 513, 5......
-
IndeX.
...707 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Co. 1932). 437. 46 N.Y.2d 62 (1978). 438. Grad v. Roberts, 14 N.Y.2d 70 (1964). 439. Murphy v. Am. Home Prods. Corp., 58 N.Y.2d 293 (1983). 440. Vermont Teddy Bear Co., Inc. v. 538 Madison Realty Co., 1 N.Y.3d 470 (2004). 441. 87 N.Y.2d 384 (1995). 442. Id. at 389. 443. ......
-
Related State Torts
...F. Supp. 134, 137 38 (D. R.I. 1988) (collecting cases)), several states do not. For example, in Murphy v. American Home Products Corp. , 58 N.Y.2d 293, 448 N.E.2d 86, 89 (1983) the New York Court of Appeal expressly declined to recognize a wrongful termination exception to the at-will doctr......
-
The strict Ohio Supreme Court decision in Biddle: third party law firm held liable for inducing disclosure of medical information.
...are not covered under a negligence theory of liability). (41) Andrews, 220 A.D.2d at 376 (quoting Murphy v. American Home Prods. Corp., 448 N.E.2d 86 (N.Y. 1983); RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS [section] 46, comment (42) Id. (43) Id. (44) Id. No action was brought for breach of confidentiali......