| Court: |
Supreme Court of Wisconsin |
|
| Facts: |
Plaintiff worked for 18 years at AFI. They wanted him to drive the
company truck. At first he did, but then he got a ticket, and
wouldn't do it any more. He repeatedly informed AFI of this,
he had the DMV call them, etc., but they kept telling him to
do it. After a while, he was mysteriously downsized. |
|
| Posture: |
Defendant appeals jury verdict for damages and future lost wages (i.e.,
front pay). |
|
| Issue: |
Three issues:
- Did the requested violation involve a fundamental, well-defined public policy?
- Did he show that his refusal was the reason for his termination?
- Should future wage losses have been allowed by the trial court?
|
|
| Holding: |
Yes, Yes, and No. Partly affirmed and partly reversed. |
|
| Rule: |
The driving statutes are obvious, and there's sound policy behind them.
The evidence that showed this was the cause of his termination was
credible enough to meet the standard of review. Front pay is hard
to calculate, though, and should only be allowed when reinstatement
is infeasible. |
|
| Reasoning: |
Quite a verbose history of public policy exceptions to at-will termination. |
|
| Dicta: |
Dissenting opinion: front pay can promote economic efficiency. |