What happened?

John Fenner was hired as a truck driver by The Hartford Courant on October 17, 1994. On December 28, 1996, the newspaper received a telephone call from an unidentified source stating that the driver had been involved in an accident resulting in some damage to property in a shopping center. A supervisor asked the driver to fill out a company accident form from the newspaper's insurance carrier.

Fenner filled in only the spaces relating to his address, date of birth, telephone number, driver's license number, and social security number. He refused to fill out the remainder of the form, claiming that he wasn't involved in any accident. On January 14, 1997, he was fired for "failure to follow company policies and practices."

Hold the presses – truck driver sues

Fenner sued the Courant, claiming that he was fired for refusing to provide false information on an insurance claim form. If he had done so, he would have violated Section 53a-215 of the Connecticut General Statutes, which prohibits furnishing false information on an insurance form.

After the evidence was presented at trial, the judge instructed the jury that it wasn't permitted to interfere with the Courant's "exercise of managerial discretion in deciding to terminate an employee . . . unless it violates public policy." He further charged that Fenner had to prove that the newspaper's reason for firing him was that he didn't provide it with false or misleading information for use in deceiving the insurance company.

The jury ruled in the Courant's favor. Fenner then appealed, claiming that the jury instruction required him to prove that the newspaper violated Section 5.3a-215 before he could prove his charge of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. He further claimed that all he had to prove was that he "reasonably believed" that the false information would be used to deceive the insurer.

Court's decision

The appellate court noted the general rule that "an employer is free to terminate an at-will employee's employment with impunity." It then acknowledged the recognized exception that an employee could sue his employer after he was fired for "a demonstrably improper reason" that violated some important public policy of the state.

The court ruled that an employee in a wrongful termination case must establish more than just his "subjective belief" that information being solicited would be used in a fraudulent manner. Rather, the burden is on the fired employee to establish "objectively" that the employer's conduct violated public policy.

The court concluded that the trial judge's instruction to the jury that Fenner was required to prove that the Courant's reason for firing him was that he wouldn't supply false information to be used in deceiving its insurance company didn't misstate the public policy exception for the wrongful termination of an at-will employee, nor did it improperly place the burden on the employee to demonstrate that a direct violation of a statute had occurred. After being properly instructed by the trial judge, the jury concluded that the fired employee hadn't met his burden of proof.

Bottom line

An employee who makes a wrongful discharge claim must do more than show that he reasonably believed that the employer would violate some public policy concern.

Rather, he must establish that the employer in fact violated an important public policy of the state.

You can research wrongful discharges or any other employment law topic in the subscribers' area of www.HRhero.com, the website for Connecticut Employment Law Letter. Access to this online library is included in your newsletter subscription at no additional charge.