{"attribution":{"name":"InterObservers Employer Desk","url":"https://interobservers.com/desk/"},"license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/","applies_to":"The compilation: selection, structure, summaries and field names, by InterObservers Employer Desk.","official_sources":"Quoted statutes and agency text are reproduced verbatim from official government sources and remain the works of those governments. U.S. federal government works are in the public domain; state and local government material is quoted for reference with a link to the source.","attribution_required":"Credit \"InterObservers Employer Desk\" with a link to https://interobservers.com/desk/."},"disclaimer":"General information, not legal advice. Laws change; check the official source linked.","generated_at":"2026-09-24T23:28:24Z","api_version":"1.0.0","topic":"at_will_exceptions","name":"Exceptions to at-will employment","page_url":"https://interobservers.com/desk/laws/at-will-employment-by-state/","api_url":"https://interobservers.com/api/v1/rules/at_will_exceptions.json","counts":{"states":51,"states_verified":43},"states":[{"state":"AL","name":"Alabama","rulebook_url":"https://interobservers.com/desk/states/alabama/","records":[{"state":"AL","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"implied_contract","rule":"Under Hoffman-La Roche v. Campbell, the language of an employee handbook can create a binding unilateral contract that modifies at-will status, unless the handbook expressly disclaims it.","values":{"status":"recognized"},"law":"McClendon v. Liberty National Life Ins. Co., No. 3:11-cv-1018-WKW (M.D. Ala. 2013), discussing Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. v. Campbell, 512 So. 2d 725 (Ala. 1987)","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-almd-3_11-cv-01018/pdf/USCOURTS-almd-3_11-cv-01018-1.pdf","source_quote":"Supreme Court saw “no reason why a policy contained in an employee manual issued to an employee cannot become a binding promise once it is accepted by the employee through his continuing to work when he is not required to do so.”","second_source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-alnd-2_12-cv-03493/pdf/USCOURTS-alnd-2_12-cv-03493-1.pdf","second_source_quote":"(holding that “the language contained in a handbook can be sufficient to constitute an offer to create a binding unilateral contract”)","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"},{"state":"AL","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"public_policy","status":"no_verified_answer","message":"No verified answer. Check the official source.","check_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-almd-3_11-cv-01018/pdf/USCOURTS-almd-3_11-cv-01018-1.pdf"}]},{"state":"AK","name":"Alaska","rulebook_url":"https://interobservers.com/desk/states/alaska/","records":[{"state":"AK","topic":"at_will_exceptions","status":"no_verified_answer","message":"No verified answer. Check the official source.","check_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-akd-3_14-cv-00143/pdf/USCOURTS-akd-3_14-cv-00143-0.pdf"}]},{"state":"AZ","name":"Arizona","rulebook_url":"https://interobservers.com/desk/states/arizona/","records":[{"state":"AZ","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"implied_contract","rule":"In Arizona employment is severable at will unless there is a written contract; a handbook or manual can create such a contract only if it expresses the intent that it is a contract of employment.","values":{"status":"limited"},"law":"A.R.S. § 23-1501(A)(2)","source_url":"https://www.azleg.gov/ars/23/01501.htm","source_quote":"Both the employee and the employer must sign this written contract, or this written contract must be set forth in the employment handbook or manual or any similar document distributed to the employee, if that document expresses the intent that it is a contract of employment, or this written contract must be set forth in a writing signed by the party to be charged.","second_source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-01015/pdf/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-01015-0.pdf","second_source_quote":"The EPA provides that under the public policy of the state an employment 15 relationship is severable at the pleasure of either the employee or the employer, unless 16 both have signed a written contract.","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"},{"state":"AZ","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"public_policy","rule":"Arizona's Employment Protection Act replaced the common-law Wagenseller rule: a fired employee has a wrongful termination claim only in the circumstances the statute lists, such as discharge in violation of a state statute or in retaliation for refusing to break the law or for reporting violations.","values":{"status":"limited"},"law":"A.R.S. § 23-1501(A)(3)","source_url":"https://www.azleg.gov/ars/23/01501.htm","source_quote":"An employee has a claim against an employer for termination of employment only if one or more of the following circumstances have occurred:","second_source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-01015/pdf/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-01015-0.pdf","second_source_quote":"In response, the Arizona legislature enacted the EPA to spell 11 out the public policy of the state and set forth the circumstances when an employee may 12 bring an action for wrongful termination.","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"}]},{"state":"AR","name":"Arkansas","rulebook_url":"https://interobservers.com/desk/states/arkansas/","records":[{"state":"AR","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"good_faith_covenant","rule":"Arkansas courts do not recognize a wrongful discharge claim for breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in at-will employment.","values":{"status":"not_recognized"},"law":"Harper v. Brookshire's Grocery, No. 1:03-cv-01170-HFB (W.D. Ark. 2005), citing Gladden v. Arkansas Children's Hosp., 292 Ark. 130, 728 S.W.2d 501 (1987)","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-arwd-1_03-cv-01170/pdf/USCOURTS-arwd-1_03-cv-01170-0.pdf","source_quote":"Arkansas is a employment at will state and its courts do not recognize as actionable a claim for breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.","second_source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ared-4_10-cv-01294/pdf/USCOURTS-ared-4_10-cv-01294-0.pdf","second_source_quote":"To the extent that plaintiff attempts to base his claim on Arkansas’ general public policy of good faith and fair dealing, that argument has been expressly rejected.","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"},{"state":"AR","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"public_policy","rule":"Arkansas recognizes a limited public policy exception (Sterling Drug v. Oxford): an at-will employee may sue for wrongful discharge if fired in violation of a well-established public policy of the state; it does not protect merely private interests.","values":{"status":"recognized"},"law":"Dixon v. Arkansas Surgical Hospital, No. 4:07-cv-00084-GTE (E.D. Ark. Mar. 25, 2008), quoting Palmer v. Arkansas Council on Economic Educ., 344 Ark. 461, 40 S.W.3d 784 (2001), and Sterling Drug, Inc. v. Oxford, 294 Ark. 239, 743 S.W.2d 380 (1988)","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ared-4_07-cv-00084/pdf/USCOURTS-ared-4_07-cv-00084-2.pdf","source_quote":"Therefore, we hold that an at-will employee has a cause of action for wrongful discharge if he or she is fired in violation of a well-established public policy of the state.","second_source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-arwd-1_03-cv-01170/pdf/USCOURTS-arwd-1_03-cv-01170-0.pdf","second_source_quote":"cases in which employees are discharged in violation of the public policy of the state.","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"},{"state":"AR","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"implied_contract","status":"no_verified_answer","message":"No verified answer. Check the official source.","check_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ared-2_16-cv-00106/pdf/USCOURTS-ared-2_16-cv-00106-0.pdf"}]},{"state":"CA","name":"California","rulebook_url":"https://interobservers.com/desk/states/california/","records":[{"state":"CA","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"implied_contract","rule":"California's statutory at-will presumption can be overcome by an agreement, express or implied in fact, that the employee will be fired only for good cause; courts look at the totality of circumstances, including personnel policies, length of service, employer assurances and industry practice (Foley; Guz v. Bechtel).","values":{"status":"recognized"},"law":"Order, No. 3:19-cv-04397 (N.D. Cal.), citing Guz v. Bechtel Nat. Inc., 24 Cal. 4th 317, 336 (2000)","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-04397/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-04397-1.pdf","source_quote":"be implied in fact, arising from the parties’ conduct evidencing their actual mutual intent to create","second_source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01922/pdf/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01922-1.pdf","second_source_quote":"personnel policies or practices of the employer, the employee’s longevity of service, actions or","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"},{"state":"CA","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"public_policy","rule":"California recognizes a tort claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy (Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co.), an exception to the at-will rule of the Labor Code.","values":{"status":"recognized"},"law":"Order, No. 4:13-cv-02835-DMR (N.D. Cal. July 18, 2014), citing Tameny v. Atl. Richfield Co., 27 Cal.3d 167 (1980)","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-02835/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-02835-1.pdf","source_quote":"exception to the employment at-will doctrine is recognized where the employee’s termination was","second_source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-05457/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-05457-1.pdf","second_source_quote":"recognizing a tort cause of action for wrongful terminations that violate public policy.","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"},{"state":"CA","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"good_faith_covenant","status":"no_verified_answer","message":"No verified answer. Check the official source.","check_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-02835/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-02835-1.pdf"}]},{"state":"CO","name":"Colorado","rulebook_url":"https://interobservers.com/desk/states/colorado/","records":[{"state":"CO","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"good_faith_covenant","rule":"Colorado does not allow a tort claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing in an employment contract (Decker v. Browning-Ferris); the public-policy wrongful discharge tort serves that role.","values":{"status":"not_recognized"},"law":"Colorado Pattern Civil Jury Instructions, Chapter 31, Notes on Use, citing Decker v. Browning-Ferris Indus., Inc., 931 P.2d 436 (Colo. 1997)","source_url":"https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/media/19708","source_quote":"A breach of a covenant of good faith and fair dealing in an employment contract does not give rise to a tort claim.","second_source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cod-1_15-cv-02418/pdf/USCOURTS-cod-1_15-cv-02418-10.pdf","second_source_quote":"permit a claim for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the employment contract context, just as in the insurance contract context. In rejecting this new theory of recovery,","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"},{"state":"CO","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"implied_contract","rule":"Colorado recognizes an implied-contract exception: termination policies in a handbook or manual can bind the employer if they were an offer the employee accepted by starting or continuing work (Continental Air Lines v. Keenan); a clear and conspicuous disclaimer defeats the claim.","values":{"status":"recognized"},"law":"Colorado Pattern Civil Jury Instructions, Chapter 31, Instruction 31:4, Notes on Use, citing Continental Air Lines, Inc. v. Keenan, 731 P.2d 708 (Colo. 1987)","source_url":"https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/media/19708","source_quote":"The Colorado Supreme Court first recognized the implied-contract exception to the employment-at-will doctrine in Keenan, 731 P.2d at 711-12.","second_source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cod-1_19-cv-00694/pdf/USCOURTS-cod-1_19-cv-00694-0.pdf","second_source_quote":"To show the existence of an implied employment contract, an employee must show that, in promulgating a written employment manual or policy or making a similar oral policy statement, the employer was making an offer to the employee.","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"},{"state":"CO","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"public_policy","rule":"Colorado recognizes a tort claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy (Martin Marietta Corp. v. Lorenz): a fired employee has a claim if the discharge contravenes a clear mandate of public policy.","values":{"status":"recognized"},"law":"Colorado Pattern Civil Jury Instructions, Chapter 31 (Wrongful Discharge), Instruction 31:12, Notes on Use, citing Martin Marietta Corp. v. Lorenz, 823 P.2d 100 (Colo. 1992)","source_url":"https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/media/19708","source_quote":"Lorenz, 823 P.2d 100 (Colo. 1992), where the court identified the elements of a claim for wrongful discharge under the public-policy exception to the employment at will doctrine.","second_source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cod-1_15-cv-02418/pdf/USCOURTS-cod-1_15-cv-02418-10.pdf","second_source_quote":"The Colorado Supreme Court first recognized a claim for termination in violation of public policy in Martin Marietta Corp. v. Lorenz, 823 P.2d 100 (Colo. 1992).","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"}]},{"state":"CT","name":"Connecticut","rulebook_url":"https://interobservers.com/desk/states/connecticut/","records":[{"state":"CT","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"implied_contract","rule":"Connecticut recognizes that statements in an employer's personnel manual or handbook can, in appropriate circumstances, create an express or implied contract that limits at-will termination; clear disclaimers can prevent this.","values":{"status":"recognized"},"law":"Wood v. Sempra Energy Trading Corp. (D. Conn. 2005), applying Finley v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co., 202 Conn. 190 (1987)","source_url":"https://ctd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/022205.JCH_.Wood_.pdf","source_quote":"A personnel manual can create a contract.","second_source_url":"https://ctd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/111600.AVC_.Gallo_.pdf","second_source_quote":"give rise to an express or implied contract between employer and employee.","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"},{"state":"CT","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"public_policy","rule":"Connecticut recognizes a common-law claim for wrongful discharge when an at-will employee is fired in violation of an important public policy (Sheets v. Teddy's Frosted Foods). Courts treat the exception as narrow, and it is generally unavailable where a statute already provides a remedy.","values":{"status":"recognized"},"law":"Connecticut Civil Jury Instructions 3.14-3 Wrongful Discharge (citing Thibodeau v. Design Group One Architects, LLC, 260 Conn. 691 (2002))","source_url":"https://www.jud.ct.gov/JI/Civil/Civil.pdf","source_quote":"However, there is an exception to this rule where the employee is terminated in violation of an important public policy.","second_source_url":"https://www.jud.ct.gov/lawjournal/Docs/CTReports/2023/12/cr346_8438.pdf","second_source_quote":"sanctioned a common-law cause of action for wrongful discharge in situations in which the reason for the discharge involved impropriety derived from some important violation of public policy.","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"},{"state":"CT","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"good_faith_covenant","status":"no_verified_answer","message":"No verified answer. Check the official source.","check_url":"https://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/06102005.JBA_.HONECK.pdf"}]},{"state":"DE","name":"Delaware","rulebook_url":"https://interobservers.com/desk/states/delaware/","records":[{"state":"DE","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"good_faith_covenant","rule":"Delaware reads an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing into at-will employment, but strictly limits it to four exclusive categories: public policy violations, employer misrepresentations relied on by the employee, using superior bargaining power to deprive the employee of earned compensation, and falsified or manipulated records used to create fictitious grounds for termination (Pressman).","values":{"status":"limited"},"law":"U.S. District Court, D. Del., No. 00-803 (Brooks v. Nationwide), citing Lord v. Souder, 748 A.2d 393 (Del. 2000) and E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co. v. Pressman, 679 A.2d 436 (Del. 1996)","source_url":"https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/opinions/00-803.pdf","source_quote":"The Delaware Supreme Court has strictly limited the application of the implied covenant in the employment context, holding that a plaintiff must establish that he or she falls into one of four exclusive categories.","second_source_url":"https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/opinions/01-819.pdf","second_source_quote":"An exception to the at-will presumption has been carved out when there is a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, but for this exception to apply, a plaintiff must establish that he or she falls into one of four exclusive categories.","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"},{"state":"DE","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"implied_contract","rule":"Delaware courts hold that an employee handbook that is a unilateral statement of company policies does not create an employment contract; a contract limiting at-will termination must expressly create a definite term or otherwise expressly bar at-will termination.","values":{"status":"not_recognized"},"law":"U.S. District Court, D. Del., No. 00-803 (Brooks v. Nationwide), citing Heideck v. Kent General Hospital, Inc., 446 A.2d 1095 (Del. 1982)","source_url":"https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/opinions/00-803.pdf","source_quote":"Further, Delaware law is well-settled that an employee handbook containing a unilateral expression of company policies, does not create an employment contract.","second_source_url":"https://courts.delaware.gov/forms/download.aspx?id=85928","second_source_quote":"name]’s employment agreement with [defendant’s name] expressly created a definite period of employment or otherwise expressly created a contract that could not be terminated “at-will”.","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"},{"state":"DE","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"public_policy","rule":"Delaware recognizes a claim when an at-will employee's termination violates public policy, but it is handled as one of the four exclusive categories of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co. v. Pressman), and applies only where no other remedial scheme exists.","values":{"status":"recognized"},"law":"Pratt v. M&T Bank Corp., No. 14-cv-1126 (D. Del.), citing Bailey v. City of Wilmington, 766 A.2d 477 (Del. 2001) and E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co. v. Pressman, 679 A.2d 436 (Del. 1996)","source_url":"https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/opinions/14-1126.pdf","source_quote":"First, Delaware recognizes a cause of action when an employee's termination violates public policy.","second_source_url":"https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/opinions/00-803.pdf","second_source_quote":"The four categories are: (1) where the termination violates public policy and no other remedial scheme exists;","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"}]},{"state":"DC","name":"District of Columbia","rulebook_url":"https://interobservers.com/desk/states/district-of-columbia/","records":[{"state":"DC","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"implied_contract","rule":"In D.C., an employee handbook or personnel manual can create an implied contract that overrides at-will status, for example when it states specific preconditions that must be met before termination (Strass v. Kaiser); a clear disclaimer generally preserves at-will status.","values":{"status":"recognized"},"law":"Memorandum Opinion, No. 1:10-cv-00900-JDB (D.D.C. Dec. 21, 2010), citing Washington Welfare Ass'n v. Wheeler, 496 A.2d 613, 615 (D.C. 1985)","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_10-cv-00900/pdf/USCOURTS-dcd-1_10-cv-00900-0.pdf","source_quote":"An implied employment contract, however, can be created when the policies and procedures implemented by the employer do not coincide with the employment-at-will doctrine.","second_source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_17-cv-01453/pdf/USCOURTS-dcd-1_17-cv-01453-0.pdf","second_source_quote":"(holding that “personnel manual that states specific preconditions that must be met before employment will be terminated is sufficiently clear to rebut the presumption of at-will employment”)","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"},{"state":"DC","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"public_policy","rule":"The District of Columbia recognizes a very narrow public policy exception to at-will employment (Adams v. George W. Cochran & Co.): an at-will employee may sue for wrongful discharge when the sole reason for the firing was refusing to violate a statute or municipal regulation; Carl v. Children's Hospital allows further exceptions solidly based on a statute or regulation.","values":{"status":"limited"},"law":"Order, No. 1:15-cv-01700 (D.D.C.), quoting Adams v. George W. Cochran & Co., 597 A.2d 28, 34 (D.C. 1991), and citing Carl v. Children's Hospital, 702 A.2d 159 (D.C. 1997)","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_15-cv-01700/pdf/USCOURTS-dcd-1_15-cv-01700-0.pdf","source_quote":"“a discharged at-will employee may sue his or her former employer for wrongful discharge when the sole reason for the discharge is the employee’s refusal to violate the law, as expressed in a statute or municipal regulation.”","second_source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_23-cv-02249/pdf/USCOURTS-dcd-1_23-cv-02249-0.pdf","second_source_quote":"The court described it as a “very narrow exception to the at-will doctrine” limited to “when the sole reason for the discharge is the employee’s refusal to violate the law, as expressed in a statute or municipal regulation.”","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"},{"state":"DC","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"good_faith_covenant","status":"no_verified_answer","message":"No verified answer. Check the official source.","check_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_04-cv-00746/pdf/USCOURTS-dcd-1_04-cv-00746-0.pdf"}]},{"state":"FL","name":"Florida","rulebook_url":"https://interobservers.com/desk/states/florida/","records":[{"state":"FL","topic":"at_will_exceptions","status":"no_verified_answer","message":"No verified answer. Check the official source.","check_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-flsd-0_14-cv-61415/pdf/USCOURTS-flsd-0_14-cv-61415-1.pdf"}]},{"state":"GA","name":"Georgia","rulebook_url":"https://interobservers.com/desk/states/georgia/","records":[{"state":"GA","topic":"at_will_exceptions","status":"no_verified_answer","message":"No verified answer. Check the official source.","check_url":"https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/200911184.pdf"}]},{"state":"HI","name":"Hawaii","rulebook_url":"https://interobservers.com/desk/states/hawaii/","records":[{"state":"HI","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"implied_contract","rule":"In Hawaii the employer's right to fire at will can be contractually modified by statements in employee policy manuals or handbooks (Kinoshita v. Canadian Pacific Airlines).","values":{"status":"recognized"},"law":"Du Preez v. Banis, No. 1:14-cv-00171-LEK (D. Haw. Sept. 30, 2015), quoting Shoppe v. Gucci Am., Inc., 94 Hawai`i 368 (2000), and Kinoshita v. Canadian Pac. Airlines, 68 Haw. 594, 601 (1986)","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-hid-1_14-cv-00171/pdf/USCOURTS-hid-1_14-cv-00171-4.pdf","source_quote":"that “the previously unfettered right of employers to discharge employees ‘can be contractually modified and, thus, qualified by statements contained in employee policy manuals or handbooks issued by employers to their employees.’”","second_source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-hid-1_14-cv-00155/pdf/USCOURTS-hid-1_14-cv-00155-5.pdf","second_source_quote":"the Hawai`i Supreme Court also recognized that “the previously unfettered right of employers to discharge employees ‘can be contractually modified","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"},{"state":"HI","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"public_policy","rule":"Hawaii recognizes a common-law claim for at-will employees fired in violation of a clear mandate of public policy (a Parnar claim, from Parnar v. Americana Hotels).","values":{"status":"recognized"},"law":"Order, No. 1:11-cv-00326 (D. Haw.), citing Parnar v. Americana Hotels, Inc., 652 P.2d 625, 631 (Haw. 1982)","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-hid-1_11-cv-00326/pdf/USCOURTS-hid-1_11-cv-00326-0.pdf","source_quote":"Hawaii common law provides a cause of action for at-will employees who are wrongfully discharged in violation of a “clear mandate of public policy.”","second_source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-hid-1_14-cv-00344/pdf/USCOURTS-hid-1_14-cv-00344-0.pdf","second_source_quote":"of termination in violation of public policy, recognized by the Hawaii Supreme Court in Parnar v. Americana Hotels, Inc., 65 Haw. 370, 652 P.2d 625 (1982).","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"},{"state":"HI","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"good_faith_covenant","status":"no_verified_answer","message":"No verified answer. Check the official source.","check_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-hid-1_07-cv-00059/pdf/USCOURTS-hid-1_07-cv-00059-1.pdf"}]},{"state":"ID","name":"Idaho","rulebook_url":"https://interobservers.com/desk/states/idaho/","records":[{"state":"ID","topic":"at_will_exceptions","status":"no_verified_answer","message":"No verified answer. Check the official source.","check_url":"https://api.isc.idaho.gov/uploads/Documents/ISC/Civil/2022/1775503751318-49535.pdf"}]},{"state":"IL","name":"Illinois","rulebook_url":"https://interobservers.com/desk/states/illinois/","records":[{"state":"IL","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"implied_contract","rule":"Illinois recognizes that an employee handbook or other policy statement can create enforceable contractual rights that limit at-will employment when the traditional requirements for contract formation are met (Duldulao v. Saint Mary of Nazareth Hospital Center).","values":{"status":"recognized"},"law":"Ross v. May Co. (Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist., No. 1-06-0239, 2007), quoting Duldulao v. Saint Mary of Nazareth Hospital Center, 115 Ill. 2d 482, 490 (1987)","source_url":"https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/Resources/3343ae58-266c-4680-a327-24f2a05ca65d/1060239.pdf","source_quote":"an employee handbook or other policy statement creates enforceable contractual rights if the traditional requirements for contract formation are present.","second_source_url":"https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/Resources/b6fbbd9e-7b54-4f38-910f-5f4d550c0633/1022871.htm","second_source_quote":"which held that \"an employee handbook or other policy statement creates enforceable contractual rights\" if three conditions were met","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"},{"state":"IL","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"public_policy","rule":"Illinois recognizes the tort of retaliatory discharge: an employer may fire an at-will employee for any reason or no reason, except when the discharge violates a clearly mandated public policy (Kelsay v. Motorola; Palmateer v. International Harvester). The Illinois Supreme Court describes the tort as limited and narrow.","values":{"status":"recognized"},"law":"Turner v. Memorial Medical Center, 233 Ill. 2d 494 (2009) (Ill. Sup. Ct. Docket No. 107317), quoting Barr v. Kelso-Burnett Co., 106 Ill. 2d 520 (1985)","source_url":"https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/Resources/0171cea8-2a18-4ebd-9bdb-d796ff970ccb/107317.pdf","source_quote":"The common law doctrine that an employer may discharge an employee-at-will for any reason or for no reason is still the law in Illinois, except for when the discharge violates a clearly mandated public policy.","second_source_url":"https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/resources/40d9756e-43de-4ca2-be1f-e1042d276ec7/file","second_source_quote":"The common law doctrine that an employer may discharge an employee-at-will for any reason or for no reason remains the law in Illinois, except when the discharge violates a clearly mandated public policy.","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"}]},{"state":"IN","name":"Indiana","rulebook_url":"https://interobservers.com/desk/states/indiana/","records":[{"state":"IN","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"good_faith_covenant","rule":"Indiana does not recognize a duty of good faith and fair dealing owed by an employer to an at-will employee.","values":{"status":"not_recognized"},"law":"Farr v. St. Francis Hospital & Health Centers, No. 1:06-cv-00779-SEB-JMS (S.D. Ind. Sept. 26, 2007), quoting Hamblen v. Danners, Inc., 478 N.E.2d 926, 929 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985)","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-insd-1_06-cv-00779/pdf/USCOURTS-insd-1_06-cv-00779-0.pdf","source_quote":"(“Indiana does not recognize that a duty of good faith and fair dealing is owed by an employer to an employee at will.”)","second_source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca7-08-03203/pdf/USCOURTS-ca7-08-03203-0.pdf","second_source_quote":"In addition, Farr’s state law claims were properly dismissed. He claims the employee handbook gave him the right to be treated fairly, but that he wasn’t—in breach of the covenant of fair dealing. Indiana, however, adheres to the employment-at-will doctrine, and Farr was an at-will employee.","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"},{"state":"IN","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"public_policy","rule":"Indiana recognizes only a narrow public policy exception: an employee fired for exercising a clear statutory right (Frampton, workers' compensation) or for refusing to commit an illegal act for which the employee would be personally liable (McClanahan) has a wrongful discharge claim.","values":{"status":"limited"},"law":"Farr v. St. Francis Hospital & Health Centers, No. 1:06-cv-00779-SEB-JMS (S.D. Ind. Sept. 26, 2007), citing Montgomery v. Bd. of Trustees of Purdue Univ., 849 N.E.2d 1120, 1128 (Ind. 2006)","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-insd-1_06-cv-00779/pdf/USCOURTS-insd-1_06-cv-00779-0.pdf","source_quote":"The public policy exception to the at-will doctrine can be “generalized to the proposition that an employee who has been fired for exercising a statutory right or refusing to violate the law has a claim for wrongful discharge.”","second_source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-insd-1_11-cv-01482/pdf/USCOURTS-insd-1_11-cv-01482-0.pdf","second_source_quote":"“On rare occasions,” Indiana Courts have recognized “narrow exceptions” to the at-will doctrine.","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"},{"state":"IN","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"implied_contract","status":"no_verified_answer","message":"No verified answer. Check the official source.","check_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca7-08-03203/pdf/USCOURTS-ca7-08-03203-0.pdf"}]},{"state":"IA","name":"Iowa","rulebook_url":"https://interobservers.com/desk/states/iowa/","records":[{"state":"IA","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"public_policy","rule":"Iowa recognizes a narrow tort for wrongful discharge in violation of a clearly defined public policy, covering discharge for enforcing a statutory right, refusing to participate in illegal activity, or reporting workplace illegalities.","values":{"status":"recognized"},"law":"Carver-Kimm v. Reynolds (Iowa Supreme Court, June 23, 2023), citing Jasper v. H. Nizam, Inc., 764 N.W.2d 751, 761 (Iowa 2009)","source_url":"https://www.iowacourts.gov/courtcases/16905/embed/SupremeCourtOpinion","source_quote":"But we’ve recognized a narrow exception to the doctrine when an employee is fired for reasons that violate a “clearly defined public policy.”","second_source_url":"https://www.iowacourts.gov/courtcases/139/embed/SupremeCourtOpinion","second_source_quote":"narrow public-policy exception to the general rule of at-will employment","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"},{"state":"IA","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"good_faith_covenant","status":"no_verified_answer","message":"No verified answer. Check the official source.","check_url":"https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/state/contacts"},{"state":"IA","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"implied_contract","status":"no_verified_answer","message":"No verified answer. Check the official source.","check_url":"https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/state/contacts"}]},{"state":"KS","name":"Kansas","rulebook_url":"https://interobservers.com/desk/states/kansas/","records":[{"state":"KS","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"implied_contract","rule":"Kansas recognizes that an employer can create an implied-in-fact contract limiting at-will termination through representations in an employment manual or other sources (Morriss v. Coleman Co.); the question is the parties' intent, judged from all the circumstances.","values":{"status":"recognized"},"law":"Taylor v. Home Depot USA, Inc., No. 6:05-cv-01300-WEB (D. Kan. Mar. 20, 2007), citing Morriss v. Coleman Co., 241 Kan. 501, 738 P.2d 841 (1987)","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ksd-6_05-cv-01300/pdf/USCOURTS-ksd-6_05-cv-01300-0.pdf","source_quote":"The Kansas courts have recognized that an employer can create an “implied-in-fact” contract based upon representations made in an employment manual or other sources.","second_source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ksd-2_15-cv-09121/pdf/USCOURTS-ksd-2_15-cv-09121-0.pdf","second_source_quote":"Kansas is an at-will employment jurisdiction, meaning that absent an express or implied contractual agreement an employer is free to terminate employment at will.","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"},{"state":"KS","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"public_policy","rule":"Kansas recognizes common-law retaliatory discharge claims as a public policy exception to at-will employment, notably for exercising workers' compensation rights and for good-faith whistleblowing; the claim is unavailable where an adequate alternative statutory remedy exists.","values":{"status":"recognized"},"law":"Debus v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co., No. 2:15-cv-09121-JAR (D. Kan. Jan. 14, 2016)","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ksd-2_15-cv-09121/pdf/USCOURTS-ksd-2_15-cv-09121-0.pdf","source_quote":"The Kansas Supreme Court, however, has recognized an exception to the at-will employment doctrine for retaliatory discharge","second_source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ksd-2_04-cv-02601/pdf/USCOURTS-ksd-2_04-cv-02601-1.pdf","second_source_quote":"Kansas Supreme Court has recognized retaliatory discharge for whistleblowing as an actionable tort.","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"},{"state":"KS","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"good_faith_covenant","status":"no_verified_answer","message":"No verified answer. Check the official source.","check_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ksd-6_13-cv-01378/pdf/USCOURTS-ksd-6_13-cv-01378-3.pdf"}]},{"state":"KY","name":"Kentucky","rulebook_url":"https://interobservers.com/desk/states/kentucky/","records":[{"state":"KY","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"public_policy","rule":"Kentucky recognizes a narrow common-law claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy (Firestone Textile v. Meadows; Grzyb v. Evans): the discharge must be contrary to a fundamental, well-defined public policy evidenced by a constitutional or statutory provision, which the court decides as a question of law.","values":{"status":"recognized"},"law":"Lewis-Smith v. Western Kentucky University, No. 1:12-cv-00014-JHM (W.D. Ky. Jan. 9, 2015), citing Grzyb v. Evans, 700 S.W.2d 399, 401 (Ky. 1985)","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-kywd-1_12-cv-00014/pdf/USCOURTS-kywd-1_12-cv-00014-0.pdf","source_quote":"Additionally, there is a narrow common law exception to the employment-at-will doctrine, which is based on public policy.","second_source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-kyed-5_16-cv-00463/pdf/USCOURTS-kyed-5_16-cv-00463-0.pdf","second_source_quote":"the exception, finding that for it to apply, “(i) the discharge must be contrary to a fundamental and well-defined public policy as evidenced by existing law; (ii) that policy must be evidenced by a constitutional or statutory provision;","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"},{"state":"KY","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"good_faith_covenant","status":"no_verified_answer","message":"No verified answer. Check the official source.","check_url":"https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/state/contacts"},{"state":"KY","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"implied_contract","status":"no_verified_answer","message":"No verified answer. Check the official source.","check_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-kyed-5_16-cv-00463/pdf/USCOURTS-kyed-5_16-cv-00463-0.pdf"}]},{"state":"LA","name":"Louisiana","rulebook_url":"https://interobservers.com/desk/states/louisiana/","records":[{"state":"LA","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"public_policy","rule":"Louisiana does not recognize a common-law public-policy exception to at-will employment; under the Civil Code an employer may dismiss an at-will employee for any reason, provided the termination does not violate a statutory or constitutional provision (such as anti-discrimination laws).","values":{"status":"not_recognized"},"law":"U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Monthly Labor Review (Jan. 2001), \"The employment-at-will doctrine: three major exceptions\"","source_url":"https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2001/01/art1full.PDF","source_quote":"Seven States have rejected the public-policy exception in its entirety: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Nebraska, New York, and Rhode Island.","second_source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-laed-2_11-cv-02659/pdf/USCOURTS-laed-2_11-cv-02659-0.pdf","second_source_quote":"An employee hired for an indefinite term has no action against his employer for wrongful discharge.","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"},{"state":"LA","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"good_faith_covenant","status":"no_verified_answer","message":"No verified answer. Check the official source.","check_url":"https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2001/01/art1full.PDF"},{"state":"LA","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"implied_contract","status":"no_verified_answer","message":"No verified answer. Check the official source.","check_url":"https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2001/01/art1full.PDF"}]},{"state":"ME","name":"Maine","rulebook_url":"https://interobservers.com/desk/states/maine/","records":[{"state":"ME","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"implied_contract","rule":"Maine enforces a promise that employment may be ended only for cause only if the restriction on the employer’s right to terminate is clearly stated; employee manuals whose restrictions are not clearly stated are not contracts (Larrabee v. Penobscot Frozen Foods).","values":{"status":"limited"},"law":"Fitzpatrick v. Teleflex, No. 1:08-cv-400 (D. Me.), citing Larrabee v. Penobscot Frozen Foods, 486 A.2d 97, 99-100 (Me. 1984)","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-med-1_08-cv-00400/pdf/USCOURTS-med-1_08-cv-00400-0.pdf","source_quote":"Maine law would require a clear statement of any \"for cause\" restriction on the employer's right to terminate the relationship, quite apart from any statute of frauds question.","second_source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-med-1_18-cv-00164/pdf/USCOURTS-med-1_18-cv-00164-1.pdf","second_source_quote":"not contracts on the grounds that the restrictions on the employer’s right to terminate were not clearly stated.","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"},{"state":"ME","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"good_faith_covenant","status":"no_verified_answer","message":"No verified answer. Check the official source.","check_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-med-1_08-cv-00400/pdf/USCOURTS-med-1_08-cv-00400-0.pdf"},{"state":"ME","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"public_policy","status":"no_verified_answer","message":"No verified answer. Check the official source.","check_url":"https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2001/01/art1full.PDF"}]},{"state":"MD","name":"Maryland","rulebook_url":"https://interobservers.com/desk/states/maryland/","records":[{"state":"MD","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"implied_contract","rule":"In Maryland, personnel-policy or handbook provisions that limit the employer’s discretion to terminate, or set a required termination procedure, may become enforceable contractual undertakings if properly expressed and communicated (Staggs v. Blue Cross of Maryland); an express disclaimer of contractual intent defeats the claim.","values":{"status":"recognized"},"law":"Spacesaver Systems, Inc. v. Adam, No. 1797, Sept. Term 2011 (Md. Ct. Spec. App., reported), quoting Staggs v. Blue Cross of Maryland, Inc., 61 Md. App. 381 (1985)","source_url":"https://www.mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/cosa/2013/1797s11.pdf","source_quote":"Provisions in policy manuals “may, if properly expressed and communicated to the employee, become contractual undertakings by the employer that are enforceable by the employee.”","second_source_url":"https://www.mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/cosa/1995/1866s94.pdf","second_source_quote":"that limit the employer's discretion to terminate an indefinite employment or that set forth a required procedure for termination of such employment may, if properly expressed and communicated to the employee, become contractual undertakings by the employer that are enforceable by the employee.","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"},{"state":"MD","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"public_policy","rule":"Maryland recognizes a tort of wrongful (\"abusive\") discharge when the motivation for firing an at-will employee contravenes a clear mandate of public policy (Adler v. American Standard Corp.); courts treat it as a narrow exception.","values":{"status":"recognized"},"law":"Parks v. Alpharma, Inc., 421 Md. 59 (2011) (Md. Court of Appeals, No. 115, Sept. Term 2010), discussing Adler v. American Standard Corp., 291 Md. 31 (1981)","source_url":"https://www.mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/coa/2011/115a10.pdf","source_quote":"Since recognizing the tort of wrongful discharge in Adler, the tort itself has been refined on a case by case basis.","second_source_url":"https://www.mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/cosa/2015/0369s14.pdf","second_source_quote":"However, the tort of wrongful discharge is a narrow exception, defined as “the willful termination of employment by the employer because of the employee’s alleged failure to perform in accordance with the employer’s expectations and the termination is contrary to a clear mandate of public policy.”","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"},{"state":"MD","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"good_faith_covenant","status":"no_verified_answer","message":"No verified answer. Check the official source.","check_url":"https://www.mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/cosa/2006/2492s05.pdf"}]},{"state":"MA","name":"Massachusetts","rulebook_url":"https://interobservers.com/desk/states/massachusetts/","records":[{"state":"MA","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"good_faith_covenant","rule":"Massachusetts implies a covenant of good faith and fair dealing in at-will employment contracts, but it is limited: an employer who fires an employee in bad faith is liable for unpaid compensation clearly connected to work already performed (Fortune v. National Cash Register).","values":{"status":"limited"},"law":"Bradley v. Cruz, No. 1:13-cv-12927 (D. Mass. Nov. 3, 2014), quoting Harrison v. NetCentric Corp., 744 N.E.2d 622, 629 (Mass. 2001), and Fortune v. Nat’l Cash Register Co., 364 N.E.2d 1251 (Mass. 1977)","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-mad-1_13-cv-12927/pdf/USCOURTS-mad-1_13-cv-12927-0.pdf","source_quote":"“an employer is accountable to a discharged employee for unpaid compensation if the employee were (sic) terminated in bad faith and the compensation is clearly connected to work already performed.”","second_source_url":"https://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/19-1233P-01A.pdf","second_source_quote":"for breach of the implied covenant \"only in circumstances when an at-will employee has been terminated in bad faith.\"","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"},{"state":"MA","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"public_policy","rule":"Massachusetts recognizes a wrongful-termination claim for at-will employees only when the firing violates a clearly established public policy (King v. Driscoll); the Supreme Judicial Court interprets this exception narrowly.","values":{"status":"recognized"},"law":"Dineen v. Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, No. 1:13-cv-12200 (D. Mass. Feb. 3, 2014), quoting King v. Driscoll, 418 Mass. 576, 582 (1994)","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-mad-1_13-cv-12200/pdf/USCOURTS-mad-1_13-cv-12200-0.pdf","source_quote":"the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has recognized that “an at-will employee has a cause of action for wrongful termination only if the termination violates a clearly established public policy.”","second_source_url":"https://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/19-1233P-01A.pdf","second_source_quote":"The SJC has permitted at-will employees to bring wrongful termination claims when their dismissal allegedly violates a clearly established public policy.","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"},{"state":"MA","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"implied_contract","status":"no_verified_answer","message":"No verified answer. Check the official source.","check_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-mad-1_13-cv-12200/pdf/USCOURTS-mad-1_13-cv-12200-0.pdf"}]},{"state":"MI","name":"Michigan","rulebook_url":"https://interobservers.com/desk/states/michigan/","records":[{"state":"MI","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"implied_contract","rule":"Michigan's at-will presumption can be rebutted: stated employer policies and established procedures can make a right to continued employment absent just cause enforceable in contract or through a legitimate-expectations claim (Toussaint v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield).","values":{"status":"recognized"},"law":"Kinch v. Pinnacle Foods Group LLC, No. 2:16-cv-12840 (E.D. Mich. July 17, 2017), quoting Toussaint v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan, 292 N.W.2d 880, 894 (Mich. 1980)","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-mied-2_16-cv-12840/pdf/USCOURTS-mied-2_16-cv-12840-0.pdf","source_quote":"\"The right to continued employment absent cause for termination may, thus, because of stated employer policies and established procedures, be enforceable in contract . . . .\"","second_source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-mied-3_22-cv-10449/pdf/USCOURTS-mied-3_22-cv-10449-0.pdf","second_source_quote":"employment at will can be rebutted so that contractual obligations and limitations are imposed on an employer's right to terminate employment.","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"},{"state":"MI","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"public_policy","rule":"Michigan recognizes limited public policy exceptions (Suchodolski v. Michigan Consolidated Gas): an employee fired for refusing to violate a law, performing a legal duty, or exercising a legal right can sue; no such claim lies where a statute already prohibits the retaliation and provides a remedy.","values":{"status":"limited"},"law":"Order, No. 1:04-cv-00835 (W.D. Mich. Aug. 8, 2006), citing Suchodolski v. Mich. Consol. Gas Co., 316 N.W.2d 710, 711 (Mich. 1982)","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-miwd-1_04-cv-00835/pdf/USCOURTS-miwd-1_04-cv-00835-0.pdf","source_quote":"can quit or be fired at any time—for any or no reason—subject to certain delimited public policy exceptions.","second_source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-miwd-1_04-cv-00836/pdf/USCOURTS-miwd-1_04-cv-00836-0.pdf","second_source_quote":"can quit or be fired at any time—for any or no reason—subject to certain delimited public policy exceptions.","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"},{"state":"MI","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"good_faith_covenant","status":"no_verified_answer","message":"No verified answer. Check the official source.","check_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-mied-2_09-cv-14687/pdf/USCOURTS-mied-2_09-cv-14687-2.pdf"}]},{"state":"MN","name":"Minnesota","rulebook_url":"https://interobservers.com/desk/states/minnesota/","records":[{"state":"MN","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"public_policy","rule":"Minnesota recognizes only a narrow common-law public policy claim (Phipps v. Clark Oil): an employee fired for refusing to participate in an activity the employee in good faith believes violates a state or federal law, rule or regulation may sue; the Supreme Court has declined to recognize a broader claim for any violation of public policy.","values":{"status":"limited"},"law":"Wredberg v. Canvas Health, Inc., No. A24-1897 (Minn. Aug. 12, 2026), citing Phipps v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp., 408 N.W.2d 569, 571 (Minn. 1987)","source_url":"https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/supct/2026/OPA241897-081226.pdf","source_quote":"In Phipps v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp., we recognized a narrow common-law cause of action for wrongful discharge based on public policy, even in cases involving at-will employment","second_source_url":"https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/supct/2014/OPA111481-010214.pdf","second_source_quote":"In Phipps, we recognized a narrow publicpolicy exception to the employment-at-will rule.","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"},{"state":"MN","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"good_faith_covenant","status":"no_verified_answer","message":"No verified answer. Check the official source.","check_url":"https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/state/contacts"},{"state":"MN","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"implied_contract","status":"no_verified_answer","message":"No verified answer. Check the official source.","check_url":"https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/supct/2026/OPA241897-081226.pdf"}]},{"state":"MS","name":"Mississippi","rulebook_url":"https://interobservers.com/desk/states/mississippi/","records":[{"state":"MS","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"public_policy","rule":"Mississippi recognizes only a narrow public policy exception to at-will employment (McArn v. Allied Bruce-Terminix): an employee may sue in tort if fired for refusing to participate in an illegal act or for reporting the employer's illegal acts.","values":{"status":"limited"},"law":"McArn v. Allied Bruce-Terminix Co., 626 So. 2d 603, 607 (Miss. 1993), as stated in Nuwer v. Mariner Post-Acute Network, No. 00-60299 (5th Cir. 2003)","source_url":"https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/00/00-60299.cv0.wpd.pdf","source_quote":"Mississippi recognizes a narrow public policy exception to the doctrine of employment at will","second_source_url":"https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/24/24-60603.0.pdf","second_source_quote":"the Mississippi Supreme Court has recognized two “narrow public policy exception[s] to the employment at will doctrine”:","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"},{"state":"MS","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"implied_contract","status":"no_verified_answer","message":"No verified answer. Check the official source.","check_url":"https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/00/00-60299.cv0.wpd.pdf"}]},{"state":"MO","name":"Missouri","rulebook_url":"https://interobservers.com/desk/states/missouri/","records":[{"state":"MO","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"public_policy","rule":"Missouri recognizes a public-policy exception to at-will employment (Fleshner v. Pepose Vision Institute): an at-will employee may not be fired for refusing to violate the law or a clear mandate of public policy, or for reporting wrongdoing. The Whistleblower's Protection Act codifies the existing common-law exceptions, limits their future expansion by the courts and is the exclusive remedy.","values":{"status":"recognized"},"law":"Mo. Rev. Stat. § 285.575.3 (Whistleblower's Protection Act, L. 2017 S.B. 43)","source_url":"https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=285.575","source_quote":"This section is intended to codify the existing common law exceptions to the at-will employment doctrine and to limit their future expansion by the courts.","second_source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-moed-4_17-cv-02876/pdf/USCOURTS-moed-4_17-cv-02876-0.pdf","second_source_quote":"Certain exceptions exist, however, including a public-policy exception, which prohibits termination of an at-will employee for either:","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"}]},{"state":"MT","name":"Montana","rulebook_url":"https://interobservers.com/desk/states/montana/","records":[{"state":"MT","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"statutory_wrongful_discharge","rule":"Montana's Wrongful Discharge from Employment Act replaces at-will employment once the probationary period ends: after the employee has completed the employer's probationary period, a discharge that is not for good cause is wrongful. The Act is the exclusive remedy for wrongful discharge and common-law tort and contract claims for discharge are preempted.","values":{"status":"recognized"},"law":"Mont. Code Ann. § 39-2-904(1)(b) (Wrongful Discharge from Employment Act)","source_url":"https://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/title_0390/chapter_0020/part_0090/section_0040/0390-0020-0090-0040.html","source_quote":"the discharge was not for good cause and the employee had completed the employer's probationary period of employment;","second_source_url":"https://wsd.dli.mt.gov/_docs/business-services/model-employee-handbook.pdf","second_source_quote":"After the employee successfully completes his or her probationary period, the employee is protected by the “good cause” standard for termination.","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"},{"state":"MT","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"public_policy","status":"no_verified_answer","message":"No verified answer. Check the official source.","check_url":"https://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/title_0390/chapter_0020/part_0090/section_0040/0390-0020-0090-0040.html"}]},{"state":"NE","name":"Nebraska","rulebook_url":"https://interobservers.com/desk/states/nebraska/","records":[{"state":"NE","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"public_policy","rule":"Nebraska recognizes a public policy exception to at-will employment: an employee may claim damages for wrongful discharge when the motivation for the firing contravenes public policy. The Nebraska Supreme Court describes it as limited to cases where a clear mandate of public policy has been violated.","values":{"status":"recognized"},"law":"Dibbern v. York Surgical Assocs., 318 Neb. 928 (2025)","source_url":"https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewAdvanced?docId=N00012072PUB","source_quote":"Under the public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine, an employee may claim damages for wrongful discharge when the motivation for the firing contravenes public policy.","second_source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ned-4_09-cv-03176/pdf/USCOURTS-ned-4_09-cv-03176-3.pdf","second_source_quote":"The Nebraska Supreme Court has recognized a public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine.","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"}]},{"state":"NV","name":"Nevada","rulebook_url":"https://interobservers.com/desk/states/nevada/","records":[{"state":"NV","topic":"at_will_exceptions","status":"no_verified_answer","message":"No verified answer. Check the official source.","check_url":"https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/01/13/20-15256.pdf"}]},{"state":"NH","name":"New Hampshire","rulebook_url":"https://interobservers.com/desk/states/new-hampshire/","records":[{"state":"NH","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"public_policy","rule":"New Hampshire recognizes a common-law wrongful termination claim when the employer fired the employee out of bad faith, malice, or retaliation, and did so because the employee performed acts public policy would encourage or refused to perform acts public policy would condemn (Cloutier; Short v. School Administrative Unit).","values":{"status":"recognized"},"law":"Faulkner v. Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, No. 1:12-cv-00482-SM (D.N.H. Aug. 12, 2015), quoting Short v. Sch. Admin. Unit No. 16, 136 N.H. 76, 84 (1992)","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nhd-1_12-cv-00482/pdf/USCOURTS-nhd-1_12-cv-00482-2.pdf","source_quote":"employer terminated the employment because the employee performed acts which public policy would encourage or because he refused to perform acts which public policy would condemn.","second_source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nhd-1_12-cv-00077/pdf/USCOURTS-nhd-1_12-cv-00077-0.pdf","second_source_quote":"employer terminated the employment because the employee performed acts which public policy would encourage or because he refused to perform acts which public policy would condemn.","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"},{"state":"NH","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"good_faith_covenant","status":"no_verified_answer","message":"No verified answer. Check the official source.","check_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nhd-1_14-cv-00393/pdf/USCOURTS-nhd-1_14-cv-00393-0.pdf"},{"state":"NH","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"implied_contract","status":"no_verified_answer","message":"No verified answer. Check the official source.","check_url":"https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/state/contacts"}]},{"state":"NJ","name":"New Jersey","rulebook_url":"https://interobservers.com/desk/states/new-jersey/","records":[{"state":"NJ","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"good_faith_covenant","rule":"New Jersey courts do not allow a stand-alone claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by an at-will employee: the claim requires an underlying contract (for example an express contract or a Woolley handbook contract).","values":{"status":"limited"},"law":"D.N.J. No. 2:05-cv-01880 (citing Schlichtig v. Inacom Corp., 271 F. Supp. 2d 597 (D.N.J. 2003))","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-njd-2_05-cv-01880/pdf/USCOURTS-njd-2_05-cv-01880-0.pdf","source_quote":"Count III, alleging breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, requires the existence of an underlying contract.","second_source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-njd-1_15-cv-06284/pdf/USCOURTS-njd-1_15-cv-06284-0.pdf","second_source_quote":"a plaintiff cannot allege a breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the absence of an underlying contract.","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"},{"state":"NJ","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"implied_contract","rule":"Under Woolley v. Hoffmann-La Roche, absent a clear and prominent disclaimer, a promise in an employment manual that an employee will be fired only for cause may be enforceable even though the employment would otherwise be at will.","values":{"status":"recognized"},"law":"Woolley v. Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc., 99 N.J. 284, 491 A.2d 1257 (1985), as quoted in D.N.J. No. 2:05-cv-01880","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-njd-2_05-cv-01880/pdf/USCOURTS-njd-2_05-cv-01880-0.pdf","source_quote":"the court held that “absent a clear and prominent disclaimer, an implied promise contained in an employment manual that an employee will be fired only for cause may be enforceable against an employer even when the employment is for an indefinite term and would otherwise be terminable at will.”","second_source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-njd-1_08-cv-03740/pdf/USCOURTS-njd-1_08-cv-03740-0.pdf","second_source_quote":"absent a clear and prominent disclaimer, an implied promise contained in an employment manual that an employee will be fired only for cause may be enforceable against an employer even when the employment is for an indefinite term and would otherwise be terminable at will.","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"},{"state":"NJ","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"public_policy","rule":"New Jersey recognizes a wrongful-discharge claim when firing an at-will employee is contrary to a clear mandate of public policy (Pierce v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp.).","values":{"status":"recognized"},"law":"Pierce v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 84 N.J. 58, 417 A.2d 505 (1980), as applied in Day v. Wells Fargo (D.N.J. No. 3:17-cv-06237, 2018)","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-njd-3_17-cv-06237/pdf/USCOURTS-njd-3_17-cv-06237-0.pdf","source_quote":"An employer's right to discharge an employee at will carries a correlative duty not to discharge an employee who declines to perform an act that would require a violation of a","second_source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-njd-1_02-cv-04722/pdf/USCOURTS-njd-1_02-cv-04722-0.pdf","second_source_quote":"New Jersey recognizes a claim for wrongful termination of an at-will employee when the discharge is contrary to a clear mandate of public policy.","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"}]},{"state":"NM","name":"New Mexico","rulebook_url":"https://interobservers.com/desk/states/new-mexico/","records":[{"state":"NM","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"good_faith_covenant","rule":"New Mexico does not recognize a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in an at-will employment relationship (Melnick v. State Farm).","values":{"status":"not_recognized"},"law":"D.N.M. No. 1:12-cv-00261 (Back v. ConocoPhillips), quoting Melnick v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 106 N.M. 726, 749 P.2d 1105 (1988)","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nmd-1_12-cv-00261/pdf/USCOURTS-nmd-1_12-cv-00261-0.pdf","source_quote":"The Supreme Court of New Mexico has noted that it does “not recognize a cause of action for breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in an at-will employment relationship.”","second_source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nmd-1_11-cv-00109/pdf/USCOURTS-nmd-1_11-cv-00109-1.pdf","second_source_quote":"Unlike the law of some states, New Mexico law does not recognize the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing as an exception to the at-will employment doctrine.","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"},{"state":"NM","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"implied_contract","rule":"In New Mexico, a representation in an employee handbook or personnel policies can create an implied contract that limits the employer's right to fire at will, if it is definite enough to create a reasonable expectation (Hartbarger v. Frank Paxton Co.).","values":{"status":"recognized"},"law":"D.N.M. No. 1:05-cv-00461, quoting Trujillo v. Northern Rio Arriba Elec. Coop., 131 N.M. 607 (2001), citing Hartbarger v. Frank Paxton Co., 115 N.M. 665, 857 P.2d 776 (1993)","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nmd-1_05-cv-00461/pdf/USCOURTS-nmd-1_05-cv-00461-2.pdf","source_quote":"“A representation in an employee handbook or personnel policies may contractually modify the at-will presumption.”","second_source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nmd-1_16-cv-01144/pdf/USCOURTS-nmd-1_16-cv-01144-3.pdf","second_source_quote":"A representation in an employee handbook or personnel policies may limit the employer’s authority to discharge if it is sufficiently explicit to create a reasonable expectation of an implied contract.","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"},{"state":"NM","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"public_policy","rule":"New Mexico recognizes a retaliatory (wrongful) discharge tort: an at-will employee may recover when the discharge contravenes a clear mandate of public policy (first recognized in Vigil v. Arzola).","values":{"status":"recognized"},"law":"Herndon v. Best Buy (10th Cir.), quoting Chavez v. Manville Prods. Corp., 108 N.M. 643, 777 P.2d 371 (1989)","source_url":"https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/01019539596.pdf","source_quote":"In New Mexico, a claim of retaliatory discharge “allows a discharged at-will employee to recover in tort when his discharge contravenes a clear mandate of public policy.”","second_source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nmd-1_16-cv-01144/pdf/USCOURTS-nmd-1_16-cv-01144-3.pdf","second_source_quote":"New Mexico first recognized a claim for wrongful discharge in Vigil v. Arzola","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"}]},{"state":"NY","name":"New York","rulebook_url":"https://interobservers.com/desk/states/new-york/","records":[{"state":"NY","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"good_faith_covenant","rule":"New York does not imply a covenant of good faith and fair dealing that limits an employer's right to terminate an at-will employee (Murphy v. American Home Products; Sabetay v. Sterling Drug).","values":{"status":"not_recognized"},"law":"Nornberg v. Thai Magic Co., 2006 NY Slip Op 50104(U) (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County), quoting Wakefield v. Northern Telecom, 769 F.2d 109 (2d Cir. 1985), on Murphy v. American Home Products, 58 N.Y.2d 293, 304-05 (1983)","source_url":"https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2006/2006_50104.htm","source_quote":"the New York Court of Appeals has squarely held that the implied covenant of good faith does not give rise to a contract action for the wrongful discharge of an at-will employee under New York law","second_source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-alnd-2_12-cv-00205/pdf/USCOURTS-alnd-2_12-cv-00205-0.pdf","second_source_quote":"We rejected plaintiff’s invitation to find an implied covenant of good faith in the employment contract.","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"},{"state":"NY","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"implied_contract","rule":"At-will status can be overcome only by an express written limitation on the employer's right to terminate (Weiner v. McGraw-Hill); vague oral assurances or the mere existence of a written policy are not enough.","values":{"status":"limited"},"law":"U.S. District Court, N.D.N.Y., No. 5:02-cv-01112 (Mar. 31, 2006), citing Weiner v. McGraw-Hill, Inc., 57 N.Y.2d 458, 461 (1982)","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nynd-5_02-cv-01112/pdf/USCOURTS-nynd-5_02-cv-01112-0.pdf","source_quote":"It is only where a plaintiff can establish the existence of an express written agreement limiting the employer’s right of termination, that the principles governing employment at will are inapplicable.","second_source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nyed-2_07-cv-04719/pdf/USCOURTS-nyed-2_07-cv-04719-0.pdf","second_source_quote":"Because, however, the New York Court of Appeals has determined that “the mere existence of a written policy . . . does not limit an employer’s right to discharge an at will employee or give rise to a legally enforceable claim by the employee against the employer,” Metellus’ breach of contract claim cannot succeed.","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"},{"state":"NY","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"public_policy","rule":"New York does not recognize a common-law claim for wrongful or retaliatory discharge of an at-will employee in violation of public policy; the Court of Appeals has left any such claim to the legislature.","values":{"status":"not_recognized"},"law":"Metellus v. JetBlue, No. 2:07-cv-04719 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2010), quoting Horn v. N.Y. Times, 100 N.Y.2d 85, 96 (2003)","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nyed-2_07-cv-04719/pdf/USCOURTS-nyed-2_07-cv-04719-0.pdf","source_quote":"New York courts have repeatedly refused to recognize a cause of action for abusive or retaliatory discharge.","second_source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nyed-2_09-cv-03135/pdf/USCOURTS-nyed-2_09-cv-03135-0.pdf","second_source_quote":"New York courts have consistently rejected causes of action for wrongful discharge asserted under New York common law.","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"}]},{"state":"NC","name":"North Carolina","rulebook_url":"https://interobservers.com/desk/states/north-carolina/","records":[{"state":"NC","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"good_faith_covenant","rule":"North Carolina does not recognize a wrongful discharge claim by an at-will employee based on an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.","values":{"status":"not_recognized"},"law":"U.S. District Court, M.D.N.C., No. 1:24-cv-00323, quoting Hardin v. Belmont Textile Mach. Co. (W.D.N.C. 2006) and citing Salt v. Applied Analytical, Inc., 104 N.C. App. 652, 661 (1991)","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ncmd-1_24-cv-00323/pdf/USCOURTS-ncmd-1_24-cv-00323-0.pdf","source_quote":"“North Carolina law does not recognize a claim for wrongful discharge of an at-will employee based on an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.”","second_source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ncmd-1_24-cv-00399/pdf/USCOURTS-ncmd-1_24-cv-00399-0.pdf","second_source_quote":"Given that the Amended Complaint establishes nothing beyond an atwill employment relationship, Plaintiff cannot maintain a claim for breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"},{"state":"NC","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"implied_contract","rule":"Employee handbooks and policies an employer issues on its own do not become part of the employment contract unless they are expressly included in it (Walker v. Westinghouse), so they rarely change at-will status.","values":{"status":"limited"},"law":"U.S. District Court, M.D.N.C., No. 1:12-cv-00286, citing Walker v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 335 S.E.2d 79, 83-84 (N.C. Ct. App. 1985)","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ncmd-1_12-cv-00286/pdf/USCOURTS-ncmd-1_12-cv-00286-0.pdf","source_quote":"Under North Carolina law, “unilaterally promulgated employment manuals or policies do not become part of the employment contract unless expressly included in it.”","second_source_url":"https://www.ncmd.uscourts.gov/sites/ncmd/files/opinions/24CV450moo.pdf","second_source_quote":"“unilaterally promulgated employment manuals or policies do not become part of the employment contract unless expressly included in it.”","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"},{"state":"NC","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"public_policy","rule":"North Carolina recognizes a common-law claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy: an employer may not fire an at-will employee for an unlawful reason or purpose that contravenes a specific expression of state public policy, such as a statute or regulation (Coman v. Thomas Mfg.; Amos v. Oakdale Knitting).","values":{"status":"recognized"},"law":"Shook v. NCG Acquisition, No. 23-1406 (4th Cir. 2024) (published), quoting Coman v. Thomas Mfg. Co., 381 S.E.2d 445, 447 (N.C. 1989)","source_url":"https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/231406.P.pdf","source_quote":"Wrongful termination in violation of public policy is one such common law exception.","second_source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ncwd-5_24-cv-00192/pdf/USCOURTS-ncwd-5_24-cv-00192-1.pdf","second_source_quote":"however, is subject to a public policy exception that provides that an employer cannot terminate an employee-at-will for a reason which is in violation of the public policy of North Carolina.","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"}]},{"state":"ND","name":"North Dakota","rulebook_url":"https://interobservers.com/desk/states/north-dakota/","records":[{"state":"ND","topic":"at_will_exceptions","status":"no_verified_answer","message":"No verified answer. Check the official source.","check_url":"https://www.nd.gov/labor/general-faq"}]},{"state":"OH","name":"Ohio","rulebook_url":"https://interobservers.com/desk/states/ohio/","records":[{"state":"OH","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"good_faith_covenant","rule":"Although every Ohio contract carries a covenant of good faith and fair dealing, there is no separate cause of action for breach of a duty of good faith in the at-will employment context.","values":{"status":"not_recognized"},"law":"U.S. District Court, S.D. Ohio, No. 2:15-cv-02223, quoting Padula v. Wagner, 2015-Ohio-2374 (9th Dist.), and Roberts v. Hagen (9th Dist. 2000)","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ohsd-2_15-cv-02223/pdf/USCOURTS-ohsd-2_15-cv-02223-1.pdf","source_quote":"“there is no separate cause of action for violating a duty to act in good faith in the employment-at-will context”","second_source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ohsd-1_07-cv-00276/pdf/USCOURTS-ohsd-1_07-cv-00276-0.pdf","second_source_quote":"“Ohio does not recognize a cause of action for breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the case of a wrongful discharge of an at-will employee[,]”","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"},{"state":"OH","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"implied_contract","rule":"Ohio recognizes two contract-based exceptions to at-will employment (Mers v. Dispatch Printing): an implied contract arising from a handbook, company policy or oral representations, and promissory estoppel based on the employer's promises.","values":{"status":"recognized"},"law":"U.S. District Court, N.D. Ohio, No. 3:11-cv-00236, citing Tersigni v. Gen. Tire, Inc., 633 N.E.2d 1140, 1141 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993) and Mers v. Dispatch Printing Co., 483 N.E.2d 150 (Ohio 1985)","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ohnd-3_11-cv-00236/pdf/USCOURTS-ohnd-3_11-cv-00236-0.pdf","source_quote":"There are, however, two exceptions to at-will employment: implied contract and promissory estoppel.","second_source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ohnd-3_07-cv-01084/pdf/USCOURTS-ohnd-3_07-cv-01084-0.pdf","second_source_quote":"2) an employee handbook, company policy, or oral representation gives rise to an implied contract that alters the at-will relationship.","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"},{"state":"OH","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"public_policy","rule":"Ohio recognizes a claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy (Greeley v. Miami Valley Maintenance; Painter v. Graley) when an at-will employee is fired in contravention of a clear public policy found in the Ohio or U.S. Constitution, statutes, administrative rules or the common law.","values":{"status":"recognized"},"law":"U.S. District Court, S.D. Ohio, No. 1:20-cv-00813 (Apr. 26, 2021), quoting Dohme v. Eurand Am., Inc., 956 N.E.2d 825, 829 (Ohio 2011)","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ohsd-1_20-cv-00813/pdf/USCOURTS-ohsd-1_20-cv-00813-0.pdf","source_quote":"if an at-will employee “is discharged or disciplined in contravention of a clear public policy articulated in the Ohio or United States Constitution, federal or state statutes, administrative rules and regulations, or common law, a cause of action for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy may exist as an exception to the general rule.”","second_source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ohnd-3_18-cv-00538/pdf/USCOURTS-ohnd-3_18-cv-00538-1.pdf","second_source_quote":"The Ohio Supreme Court recognized an exception to the employment-at-will doctrine that applies when an at-will employee is discharged for reasons that contravene clear public policy expressed by the legislature.","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"}]},{"state":"OK","name":"Oklahoma","rulebook_url":"https://interobservers.com/desk/states/oklahoma/","records":[{"state":"OK","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"good_faith_covenant","rule":"Oklahoma does not imply a covenant of good faith and fair dealing in at-will employment (Burk v. K-Mart Corp.), so an at-will employee cannot sue for a bad-faith termination.","values":{"status":"not_recognized"},"law":"Langston v. Therma-Tru Corp., No. 6:07-cv-00250 (E.D. Okla. Jan. 18, 2008), citing Burk v. K-Mart Corp., 770 P.2d 24, 27 (Okla. 1989)","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-oked-6_07-cv-00250/pdf/USCOURTS-oked-6_07-cv-00250-0.pdf","source_quote":"Under Oklahoma law, there is no implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in at-will employment contracts.","second_source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca10-89-05012/pdf/USCOURTS-ca10-89-05012-0.pdf","second_source_quote":"After the Burk decision, a terminated at-will employee cannot bring suit against a former employer for an alleged bad faith termination.","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"},{"state":"OK","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"implied_contract","rule":"Oklahoma recognizes implied employment contracts, including ones based on handbooks and policy manuals (Hinson v. Cameron; Hayes v. Eateries); courts balance factors such as separate consideration, length of employment, handbooks, detrimental reliance and promotions, and vague assurances are not enough.","values":{"status":"recognized"},"law":"Wood v. Handy & Harman Co., No. 06-5226 (10th Cir. Aug. 1, 2008) (unpublished), quoting Bowen v. Income Prod'g Mgmt., 202 F.3d 1282, 1284 (10th Cir. 2000), citing Hinson v. Cameron, 742 P.2d 549, 554-55 (Okla. 1987)","source_url":"https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/01013150966.pdf","source_quote":"To determine whether the parties intended to form a contract, five factors are balanced: (a) evidence of “separate consideration” beyond the employee’s services; (b) length of employment; (c) employer handbooks and policy manuals; (d) detrimental reliance by the employee; and (e) promotions and commendations.","second_source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-okwd-5_16-cv-00817/pdf/USCOURTS-okwd-5_16-cv-00817-0.pdf","second_source_quote":"Notably, these cases are based on Oklahoma Supreme Court decisions such as Hayes v. Eateries, Inc., 905 P.2d 778 (Okla. 1995), and Hinson v. Cameron, 742 P.2d 549 (Okla. 1987), that apply principles of implied contract to employee handbooks and manuals.","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"},{"state":"OK","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"public_policy","rule":"Oklahoma recognizes a narrow tort (the Burk tort, from Burk v. K-Mart Corp.) for an at-will employee fired for refusing to violate, or for acting consistently with, a clear and compelling public policy articulated in Oklahoma constitutional, statutory or decisional law.","values":{"status":"recognized"},"law":"U.S. Court of Appeals, 10th Cir., No. 06-5205, citing Burk v. K-Mart Corp., 770 P.2d 24, 29 (Okla. 1989)","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca10-06-05205/pdf/USCOURTS-ca10-06-05205-0.pdf","source_quote":"Under Oklahoma law, a tort claim can be premised on the termination of an at-will employee in violation of a public policy.","second_source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca10-94-05197/pdf/USCOURTS-ca10-94-05197-0.pdf","second_source_quote":"In Burk, the Oklahoma Supreme Court carved out a narrow exception to the Oklahoma employment-at-will doctrine by recognizing a tort cause of action \"where an employee is discharged for refusing to act in violation of an established and well-defined public policy or for performing an act consistent with a clear and compelling public policy.\"","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"}]},{"state":"OR","name":"Oregon","rulebook_url":"https://interobservers.com/desk/states/oregon/","records":[{"state":"OR","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"good_faith_covenant","rule":"The Oregon Supreme Court (Sheets v. Knight) declined to apply the duty of good faith and fair dealing to an employer's right to discharge an at-will employee.","values":{"status":"not_recognized"},"law":"U.S. District Court, D. Or., No. 6:04-cv-06326 (Oct. 5, 2005), quoting Sheets v. Knight, 308 Or. 220 (1989)","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ord-6_04-cv-06326/pdf/USCOURTS-ord-6_04-cv-06326-0.pdf","source_quote":"This Court has never held that the duty of good faith and fair dealing applies to at-will employment contracts, insofar as the right to discharge at will is concerned.","second_source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ord-3_23-cv-00085/pdf/USCOURTS-ord-3_23-cv-00085-0.pdf","second_source_quote":"In the context of at-will employment contracts, there is no duty of good faith and fair dealing \"insofar as the right to discharge at will is concerned.\"","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"},{"state":"OR","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"implied_contract","rule":"Statements in an employee handbook can become part of the employment contract (Yartzoff v. Democrat-Herald), but a clear disclaimer in the handbook or personnel policies keeps the employee at will.","values":{"status":"recognized"},"law":"U.S. District Court, D. Or., No. 3:23-cv-00136, citing Yartzoff v. Democrat-Herald Publ'g Co., 281 Or. 651, 656-57 (1978) and Lawson v. Umatilla Cnty., 139 F.3d 690, 693 (9th Cir. 1998)","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ord-3_23-cv-00136/pdf/USCOURTS-ord-3_23-cv-00136-1.pdf","source_quote":"Under certain circumstances, an employee’s acceptance of workplace policies may constitute a valid contract with the employer.","second_source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ord-3_16-cv-02072/pdf/USCOURTS-ord-3_16-cv-02072-2.pdf","second_source_quote":"(“[S]tatements in the [employee] handbook were intended and considered by both parties to be a part of plaintiff’s original contract of employment” and “[i]t follows that her continued employment after receiving the handbook provided sufficient consideration for any such modification of the original contract of employment”)","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"},{"state":"OR","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"public_policy","rule":"Oregon recognizes the common-law tort of wrongful discharge as a narrow exception to at-will employment, in two situations: discharge for performing a public duty or fulfilling a societal obligation (for example jury duty, Nees v. Hocks), and discharge for exercising an important job-related right.","values":{"status":"recognized"},"law":"U.S. District Court, D. Or., No. 3:06-cv-01012 (Dec. 3, 2007), citing Sheets v. Knight, 779 P.2d 1000, 1006 (Or. 1989) and Nees v. Hocks, 536 P.2d 512 (Or. 1975)","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ord-3_06-cv-01012/pdf/USCOURTS-ord-3_06-cv-01012-0.pdf","source_quote":"Oregon courts have recognized two circumstances that give rise to this tort: (1) discharge for performing a public duty or fulfilling a societal obligation and (2) discharge for exercising an important job-related right.","second_source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ord-3_07-cv-01002/pdf/USCOURTS-ord-3_07-cv-01002-0.pdf","second_source_quote":"Oregon courts have recognized two circumstances that give rise to this tort: (1) discharge for performing a public duty or fulfilling a societal obligation and (2) discharge for exercising an important job-related right.","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"}]},{"state":"PA","name":"Pennsylvania","rulebook_url":"https://interobservers.com/desk/states/pennsylvania/","records":[{"state":"PA","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"good_faith_covenant","rule":"An at-will employee in Pennsylvania cannot sue for breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing over the termination itself (Donahue v. Federal Express).","values":{"status":"not_recognized"},"law":"McGee v. Procter & Gamble Distributing Co., No. 2:02-cv-01121 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 3, 2006), quoting Donahue v. Federal Express Corp., 753 A.2d 238, 243 (Pa. Super. 2000)","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-paed-2_02-cv-01121/pdf/USCOURTS-paed-2_02-cv-01121-0.pdf","source_quote":"“cannot as a matter of law maintain an action for breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, insofar as the underlying claim is for termination of an at-will employment relationship.”","second_source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-paed-2_09-cv-01547/pdf/USCOURTS-paed-2_09-cv-01547-2.pdf","second_source_quote":"Without a contract, Shire cannot be held liable for breach of contract, or for breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"},{"state":"PA","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"implied_contract","rule":"Pennsylvania strongly presumes at-will employment; the presumption is overcome only by an express contract, an implied agreement supported by additional consideration, or clear and precise evidence of a contract for a definite term. Vague assurances or subjective expectations are not enough.","values":{"status":"limited"},"law":"McGee v. Procter & Gamble Distributing Co., No. 2:02-cv-01121 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 3, 2006), citing Permenter v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., 38 F. Supp. 2d 372, 377 (E.D. Pa. 1999)","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-paed-2_02-cv-01121/pdf/USCOURTS-paed-2_02-cv-01121-0.pdf","source_quote":"Employment in Pennsylvania is presumed to be at-will unless there is an express contract, or an implied agreement with additional consideration, that allows the court to infer that the parties did not intend the employment to be at-will.","second_source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-paed-2_09-cv-01547/pdf/USCOURTS-paed-2_09-cv-01547-2.pdf","second_source_quote":"Evidence of a subjective expectation of a guaranteed employment period, based on employer practices or vague employer superlatives, is insufficient.","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"},{"state":"PA","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"public_policy","rule":"Pennsylvania recognizes a very narrow public policy exception to at-will employment: the firing must violate a clear public policy found in the constitution, legislation, a regulation or a judicial decision, and courts have applied it mainly where the employer required a crime, prevented compliance with a statutory duty, or fired the employee where a statute specifically prohibits it.","values":{"status":"limited"},"law":"Tanay v. Encore Healthcare, LLC, No. 2:10-cv-00792 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 26, 2011), citing McLaughlin v. Gastrointestinal Specialists, Inc., 750 A.2d 283, 287 (Pa. 2000)","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-paed-2_10-cv-00792/pdf/USCOURTS-paed-2_10-cv-00792-0.pdf","source_quote":"An exception to this rule exists where the termination violates public policy.","second_source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-pawd-2_09-cv-00804/pdf/USCOURTS-pawd-2_09-cv-00804-0.pdf","second_source_quote":"In light of the extreme narrowness of the public policy exception to at-will employment","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"}]},{"state":"RI","name":"Rhode Island","rulebook_url":"https://interobservers.com/desk/states/rhode-island/","records":[{"state":"RI","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"good_faith_covenant","rule":"Rhode Island does not imply a covenant of good faith and fair dealing that limits termination of an at-will employee; the covenant exists only alongside a binding contract.","values":{"status":"not_recognized"},"law":"Bisbano v. Strine Printing Co., No. 13-1722 (1st Cir. Nov. 27, 2013), citing Centerville Builders, Inc. v. Wynne, 683 A.2d 1340, 1342 (R.I. 1996)","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca1-13-01722/pdf/USCOURTS-ca1-13-01722-0.pdf","source_quote":"It is axiomatic, however, that such a covenant only comes into existence ancillary to a binding contract.","second_source_url":"https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2001/01/art1full.PDF","second_source_quote":"Three southern States—Florida, Georgia, and Louisiana—and Rhode Island do not recognize any of the three major exceptions to employment at will.","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"},{"state":"RI","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"public_policy","rule":"Rhode Island courts do not recognize a common-law claim for wrongful discharge of an at-will employee in violation of public policy (Pacheco v. Raytheon); protections come from statutes.","values":{"status":"not_recognized"},"law":"Shumacher v. Fairfield Resorts, Inc., No. 1:05-cv-00500 (D.R.I. June 8, 2007), quoting Pacheco v. Raytheon Co., 623 A.2d 464, 465 (R.I. 1993)","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-rid-1_05-cv-00500/pdf/USCOURTS-rid-1_05-cv-00500-3.pdf","source_quote":"To the extent that Plaintiff is attempting to allege a claim for wrongful discharge, it fails because “in Rhode Island there is no cause of action for wrongful discharge.”","second_source_url":"https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2001/01/art1full.PDF","second_source_quote":"Seven States have rejected the public-policy exception in its entirety: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Nebraska, New York, and Rhode Island.","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"},{"state":"RI","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"implied_contract","status":"no_verified_answer","message":"No verified answer. Check the official source.","check_url":"https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2001/01/art1full.PDF"}]},{"state":"SC","name":"South Carolina","rulebook_url":"https://interobservers.com/desk/states/south-carolina/","records":[{"state":"SC","topic":"at_will_exceptions","status":"no_verified_answer","message":"No verified answer. Check the official source.","check_url":"https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t41c001.php"}]},{"state":"SD","name":"South Dakota","rulebook_url":"https://interobservers.com/desk/states/south-dakota/","records":[{"state":"SD","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"good_faith_covenant","rule":"South Dakota courts have refused to impose an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing on employment contracts in a way that overrides the at-will statute.","values":{"status":"not_recognized"},"law":"U.S. District Court, D.S.D., No. 5:06-cv-05056 (Apr. 17, 2008), describing Peterson, 443 N.W.2d at 655, and Breen v. Dakota Gear & Joint Co., 443 N.W.2d 221, 224 (S.D. 1988)","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-sdd-5_06-cv-05056/pdf/USCOURTS-sdd-5_06-cv-05056-0.pdf","source_quote":"(refusing to impose an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing upon employment contracts and enforcing the at-will statutory provision)","second_source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-sdd-4_15-cv-04102/pdf/USCOURTS-sdd-4_15-cv-04102-0.pdf","second_source_quote":"And a claim for a breach of the covenant of good faith fails when a contracting party merely avails itself of a right provided for in the contract.","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"},{"state":"SD","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"implied_contract","rule":"A contract can override at-will status in South Dakota, including an implied for-cause-only contract, but only where the employee handbook contains a detailed list of exclusive grounds for discharge and a mandatory specific procedure the employer agrees to follow.","values":{"status":"limited"},"law":"U.S. District Court, D.S.D., No. 5:06-cv-05056 (Apr. 17, 2008), quoting Bass v. Happy Rest, Inc., 507 N.W.2d 317, 321 (S.D. 1993)","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-sdd-5_06-cv-05056/pdf/USCOURTS-sdd-5_06-cv-05056-0.pdf","source_quote":"(2) employees with express ‘for cause only’ agreements or implied ‘for cause only’ cases where an employee handbook contains a detailed list of exclusive grounds for discharge and a mandatory specific procedure the employer agrees to follow","second_source_url":"https://dlr.sd.gov/employment_laws/termination.aspx","second_source_quote":"A contract for employment exists.","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"},{"state":"SD","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"public_policy","rule":"South Dakota, where employment is at will by statute, recognizes a narrow public policy exception: an employee fired in retaliation for refusing to commit a criminal or unlawful act has a wrongful discharge claim; the South Dakota labor department also lists firing for exercising a lawful right such as filing a workers' compensation claim.","values":{"status":"recognized"},"law":"U.S. District Court, D.S.D., No. 5:06-cv-05056 (Apr. 17, 2008), quoting Johnson v. Kreiser's, Inc., 433 N.W.2d 225, 227 (S.D. 1988)","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-sdd-5_06-cv-05056/pdf/USCOURTS-sdd-5_06-cv-05056-0.pdf","source_quote":"An employee has a cause of action for wrongful discharge when the employer discharges him in retaliation for his refusal to commit a criminal or unlawful act.","second_source_url":"https://dlr.sd.gov/employment_laws/termination.aspx","second_source_quote":"The employer discharges an employee in retaliation for refusal to commit a criminal or unlawful act.","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"}]},{"state":"TN","name":"Tennessee","rulebook_url":"https://interobservers.com/desk/states/tennessee/","records":[{"state":"TN","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"good_faith_covenant","rule":"In Tennessee the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing cannot modify the employment-at-will doctrine: an employer does not breach it by firing an at-will employee for any reason (Goot v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville).","values":{"status":"not_recognized"},"law":"Coker v. Carrier Corp., No. 4:05-cv-00051 (E.D. Tenn.), quoting Goot v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., No. M2003-02013-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 9, 2005), and McGee, 106 S.W.3d at 67","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-tned-4_05-cv-00051/pdf/USCOURTS-tned-4_05-cv-00051-0.pdf","source_quote":"“the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing cannot modify the employment-at-will doctrine and, therefore, . . . an employer does not breach its implied duty of good faith and fair dealing when it discharges an at-will employee for any reason.”","second_source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-tned-3_12-cv-00120/pdf/USCOURTS-tned-3_12-cv-00120-0.pdf","second_source_quote":"The employment-at-will doctrine is not affected, however, by the duty.","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"},{"state":"TN","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"implied_contract","rule":"A Tennessee employee handbook can become part of an employment contract, but only if it contains specific language showing the employer's intent to be bound by its provisions (Keller v. Casteel; Rose v. Tipton County); courts apply a high standard, and language reserving the employer's right to change the handbook generally prevents it from being a contract.","values":{"status":"limited"},"law":"Freeze v. City of Decherd, No. 12-6160 (6th Cir. June 4, 2014) (published), citing Rose v. Tipton Cnty. Pub. Works Dep't, 953 S.W.2d 690, 692 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997)","source_url":"https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/14a0117p-06.pdf","source_quote":"“In order to constitute a contract, however, the handbook must contain specific language showing the employer’s intent to be bound by the handbook’s provisions.”","second_source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-tnmd-3_25-cv-00193/pdf/USCOURTS-tnmd-3_25-cv-00193-0.pdf","second_source_quote":"Tennessee courts have recognized that an employee handbook may, as a matter of state law, “become part of an employment contract,” but only if it “contain[s] specific language showing the employer’s intent to be bound by the handbook’s provisions.”","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"},{"state":"TN","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"public_policy","rule":"Tennessee recognizes a common-law retaliatory discharge claim for an at-will employee fired for trying to exercise a statutory or constitutional right, or for any other reason that violates a clear public policy evidenced by an unambiguous constitutional, statutory or regulatory provision (Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat for Humanity). A statutory claim also exists under the Tennessee Public Protection Act.","values":{"status":"recognized"},"law":"Levan v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., No. 3:11-cv-578 (E.D. Tenn. Nov. 25, 2013)","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-tned-3_11-cv-00578/pdf/USCOURTS-tned-3_11-cv-00578-0.pdf","source_quote":"(3) that the reason for his discharge was that he attempted to exercise a statutory or constitutional right, or for any other reason which violates a clear public policy evidenced by an unambiguous constitutional, statutory, or regulatory provision","second_source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-tnmd-3_12-cv-00261/pdf/USCOURTS-tnmd-3_12-cv-00261-0.pdf","second_source_quote":"(3) that the reason for the discharge was that the employee attempted to exercise a statutory or constitutional right, or for any other reason which violates a clear public policy evidenced by an unambiguous constitutional, statutory, or regulatory provision; and","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"}]},{"state":"TX","name":"Texas","rulebook_url":"https://interobservers.com/desk/states/texas/","records":[{"state":"TX","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"public_policy","rule":"Texas recognizes only a very narrow public-policy exception (Sabine Pilot Service, Inc. v. Hauck): an employer may not fire an employee for refusing to perform an illegal act.","values":{"status":"limited"},"law":"Texas Workforce Commission, Texas Guidebook for Employers (2024), Outline of Employment Law Issues","source_url":"https://efte.twc.texas.gov/texas-guidebook-for-employers-2024.pdf","source_quote":"Exceptions: other than statutes and express agreements, the only significant exception to employment at will is the “public policy” exception, i.e., no termination or adverse job action against an employee in retaliation for the employee having refused to commit a criminal act on the employer’s behalf.","second_source_url":"https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/Opinions/pub/02/02-50542.cv0.wpd.pdf","second_source_quote":"Sabine Pilot Service, Inc. v. Hauck, in which the Texas Supreme Court allowed an employee to assert wrongful discharge for refusal to perform an illegal act, thereby creating a “very narrow exception” to the general doctrine that employees-at-will can be discharged at any time for any reason.","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"}]},{"state":"UT","name":"Utah","rulebook_url":"https://interobservers.com/desk/states/utah/","records":[{"state":"UT","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"public_policy","rule":"Utah recognizes a tort claim for wrongful discharge in violation of a clear and substantial public policy.","values":{"status":"recognized"},"law":"U.S. District Court, D. Utah, No. 2:03-cv-01088 (applying Utah law)","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-utd-2_03-cv-01088/pdf/USCOURTS-utd-2_03-cv-01088-0.pdf","source_quote":"Under Utah’s employment law, an “employee's discharge for a reason that contravenes a clear and substantial public policy gives rise to a cause of action in tort.","second_source_url":"https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/01019543879.pdf","second_source_quote":"To prevail on a claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy in Utah, Hogan must show that his conduct brought a clear and substantial public policy into play.","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"},{"state":"UT","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"good_faith_covenant","status":"no_verified_answer","message":"No verified answer. Check the official source.","check_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-utd-2_05-cv-00550/pdf/USCOURTS-utd-2_05-cv-00550-0.pdf"},{"state":"UT","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"implied_contract","status":"no_verified_answer","message":"No verified answer. Check the official source.","check_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-utd-2_17-cv-00978/pdf/USCOURTS-utd-2_17-cv-00978-0.pdf"}]},{"state":"VT","name":"Vermont","rulebook_url":"https://interobservers.com/desk/states/vermont/","records":[{"state":"VT","topic":"at_will_exceptions","status":"no_verified_answer","message":"No verified answer. Check the official source.","check_url":"https://legislature.vermont.gov/Documents/2016/WorkGroups/House%20General/Labor%20and%20Employment/Whistleblowing/W~Ted%20Hobson~Marcoux-Norton%20v.%20KMART%20Corporation~5-6-2015.pdf"}]},{"state":"VA","name":"Virginia","rulebook_url":"https://interobservers.com/desk/states/virginia/","records":[{"state":"VA","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"public_policy","rule":"Virginia recognizes only a narrow public-policy exception to at-will employment (Bowman v. State Bank of Keysville), which its Supreme Court has construed narrowly and applied in few instances.","values":{"status":"limited"},"law":"Bailey v. Scott-Gallaher, Inc., Supreme Court of Virginia, Record No. 960530","source_url":"https://www.vacourts.gov/static/opinions/opnscvwp/1960530.pdf","source_quote":"We have also held, however, that the common law employmentat-will doctrine is not absolute, and we have recognized certain narrow public policy exceptions to this doctrine.","second_source_url":"https://www.vacourts.gov/static/opinions/opnscvwp/1990399.pdf","second_source_quote":"We have narrowly construed the public policy exception to that doctrine, and we have applied that exception in few instances.","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"}]},{"state":"WA","name":"Washington","rulebook_url":"https://interobservers.com/desk/states/washington/","records":[{"state":"WA","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"public_policy","rule":"Washington recognizes the tort of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy (adopted in Thompson v. St. Regis Paper Co.) as a narrow exception to at-will employment.","values":{"status":"recognized"},"law":"Martin v. Gonzaga University, Washington Supreme Court No. 95269-8 (slip opinion)","source_url":"https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/952698.pdf","source_quote":"In Thompson v. St. Regis Paper Co., we adopted the tort of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy as a narrow exception to the at-will doctrine.","second_source_url":"https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/909750.pdf","second_source_quote":"The wrongful discharge against public policy tort has undergone numerous permutations since its recognition over 30 years ago.","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"}]},{"state":"WV","name":"West Virginia","rulebook_url":"https://interobservers.com/desk/states/west-virginia/","records":[{"state":"WV","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"good_faith_covenant","rule":"West Virginia does not recognize an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in at-will employment; an employer has no implied duty to act in good faith when discharging an at-will employee, as long as the motivation does not contravene substantial public policy.","values":{"status":"not_recognized"},"law":"Coleman v. Housing Authority of the City of Weirton, No. 5:12-cv-00151 (N.D. W. Va. Jan. 29, 2014), quoting Miller v. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co., 193 W. Va. 240, 244, 455 S.E.2d 799, 803 (1995)","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-wvnd-5_12-cv-00151/pdf/USCOURTS-wvnd-5_12-cv-00151-1.pdf","source_quote":"[West Virginia] do[es] not recognize the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the context of an at-will employment contract.”","second_source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-wvnd-5_06-cv-00154/pdf/USCOURTS-wvnd-5_06-cv-00154-0.pdf","second_source_quote":"(holding that employer does not have an implied duty to act in good faith when discharging an at-will employee provided that the employer’s motivation for the termination does not contravene substantial public policy)","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"},{"state":"WV","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"implied_contract","rule":"West Virginia presumes at-will employment, but contractual provisions on discharge or job security, including a definite promise of job security in an employee handbook, can alter at-will status (Cook v. Heck's).","values":{"status":"recognized"},"law":"Veltri v. Graybar Electric Co., No. 5:09-cv-00101 (N.D. W. Va.), quoting Pleasant v. Elk Run Coal Co., 486 S.E.2d 798, 802 (W. Va. 1997), citing Cook v. Heck's Inc., 342 S.E.2d 453, 459 (W. Va. 1986)","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-wvnd-5_09-cv-00101/pdf/USCOURTS-wvnd-5_09-cv-00101-0.pdf","source_quote":"One exception to this general rule is that “a binding and enforceable legal contract may be initiated through a promise of job security contained in an employee handbook” and this will suffice to modify at-will employment.","second_source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-wvnd-5_12-cv-00151/pdf/USCOURTS-wvnd-5_12-cv-00151-1.pdf","second_source_quote":"However, “[c]ontractual provisions relating to discharge or job security may alter the at will status of a particular employee.”","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"},{"state":"WV","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"public_policy","rule":"West Virginia recognizes a common-law claim (a Harless claim) when an employer fires an at-will employee to contravene a substantial public policy principle.","values":{"status":"recognized"},"law":"Keffer v. Fayette County Board of Education, No. 22-631 (W. Va. Oct. 25, 2024) (memorandum decision), quoting Syl., Harless v. First Nat'l Bank, 162 W. Va. 116, 246 S.E.2d 270 (1978)","source_url":"https://www.courtswv.gov/sites/default/pubfilesmnt/2024-10/22-631%20md.pdf","source_quote":"(“The rule that an employer has an absolute right to discharge an at will employee must be tempered by the principle that where the employer’s motivation for the discharge is to contravene some substantial public policy principle, then the employer may be liable to the employee for damages occasioned by this discharge.”)","second_source_url":"https://www.courtswv.gov/sites/default/pubfilesmnt/2024-04/22-609%20and%2022-610-wooton-p_4.pdf","second_source_quote":"(“The rule that an employer has an absolute right to discharge an at will employee must be tempered by the principle that where the employer’s motivation for the discharge is to contravene some substantial public policy principle, then the employer may be liable to the employee for damages occasioned by this discharge.”)","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"}]},{"state":"WI","name":"Wisconsin","rulebook_url":"https://interobservers.com/desk/states/wisconsin/","records":[{"state":"WI","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"implied_contract","rule":"In Wisconsin a handbook that sets out mandatory discharge procedures can create an employment contract (Ferraro v. Koelsch), but an employee is considered at will unless evidence expressly shows the parties intended to be bound to a different arrangement.","values":{"status":"limited"},"law":"Williams v. Milwaukee Health Services Inc., No. 13-3412 (7th Cir. Apr. 18, 2014), citing Ferraro v. Koelsch, 368 N.W.2d 666, 668 (Wis. 1985)","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca7-13-03412/pdf/USCOURTS-ca7-13-03412-0.pdf","source_quote":"True, in Wisconsin, a handbook that sets forth mandatory discharge procedures can create an employment relationship.","second_source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca7-22-01521/pdf/USCOURTS-ca7-22-01521-0.pdf","second_source_quote":"A document containing guidance for an employee, such as a handbook or a performance improvement plan, can modify an at-will employment relationship.","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"},{"state":"WI","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"public_policy","rule":"Wisconsin recognizes a narrow public policy exception (Brockmeyer v. Dun & Bradstreet): a fired employee has a wrongful discharge claim only when the discharge is contrary to a fundamental and well-defined public policy evidenced by existing constitutional, statutory or administrative law.","values":{"status":"recognized"},"law":"Robinette v. Westconsin Credit Union, No. 3:09-cv-00600 (W.D. Wis. Feb. 25, 2010), citing Tatge v. Chambers & Owen, Inc., 219 Wis. 2d 99, 113 (1998) and Brockmeyer v. Dun & Bradstreet, 113 Wis. 2d 561, 572-73 (1983)","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-wiwd-3_09-cv-00600/pdf/USCOURTS-wiwd-3_09-cv-00600-0.pdf","source_quote":"Wisconsin’s narrow public policy exception to the employment at will doctrine provides that an employee has a cause of action for wrongful discharge when a discharge is contrary to a fundamental and well-defined public policy as evidenced by existing constitutional, statutory or administrative law.","second_source_url":"https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2001/01/art1full.PDF","second_source_quote":"The court in Brockmeyer decided to limit the application of the public-policy exception to “fundamental and well-defined public policy as evidenced by existing law”","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"},{"state":"WI","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"good_faith_covenant","status":"no_verified_answer","message":"No verified answer. Check the official source.","check_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca7-23-02963/pdf/USCOURTS-ca7-23-02963-0.pdf"}]},{"state":"WY","name":"Wyoming","rulebook_url":"https://interobservers.com/desk/states/wyoming/","records":[{"state":"WY","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"good_faith_covenant","rule":"Every Wyoming employment contract contains an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Wilder v. Cody Country Chamber of Commerce), but a breach is actionable in tort only where a special relationship of trust and reliance exists between employer and employee, which arises only in rare and exceptional cases.","values":{"status":"limited"},"law":"McBride v. Peak Wellness Center, Inc., No. 11-8037 (10th Cir. Aug. 6, 2012), citing Wilder v. Cody Country Chamber of Commerce, 868 P.2d 211, 220 (Wyo. 1994) and Dubrowski v. State ex rel. Wyo. Liquor Comm'n, 1 P.3d 631, 633 (Wyo. 2000)","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca10-11-08037/pdf/USCOURTS-ca10-11-08037-0.pdf","source_quote":"But breaches of this covenant are not actionable in tort unless “a special relationship of trust and reliance exists between the employer and the employee.”","second_source_url":"https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2001/01/art1full.PDF","second_source_quote":"Only six western States—Alaska, California, Idaho, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming—recognize all three of the major exceptions.","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"},{"state":"WY","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"implied_contract","rule":"Wyoming presumes employment is at will, but employers and employees can depart from that presumption through an express or implied contract, which may include an employee handbook; a handbook disclaimer can preserve at-will status.","values":{"status":"recognized"},"law":"McBride v. Peak Wellness Center, Inc., No. 11-8037 (10th Cir. Aug. 6, 2012), citing Boone v. Frontier Ref., Inc., 987 P.2d 681, 685 (Wyo. 1999)","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca10-11-08037/pdf/USCOURTS-ca10-11-08037-0.pdf","source_quote":"Employees and employers may depart from the presumption by entering an express or implied contract, which may include an employee handbook.","second_source_url":"https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2001/01/art1full.PDF","second_source_quote":"Only six western States—Alaska, California, Idaho, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming—recognize all three of the major exceptions.","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"},{"state":"WY","topic":"at_will_exceptions","case":"public_policy","rule":"Wyoming recognizes a limited public policy exception to at-will employment (McLean v. Hyland Enterprises): the employee must identify a strong and well-established public policy and show that no other remedy is available.","values":{"status":"limited"},"law":"McBride v. Peak Wellness Center, Inc., No. 11-8037 (10th Cir. Aug. 6, 2012), quoting McLean v. Hyland Enters., Inc., 34 P.3d 1262, 1268 (Wyo. 2001)","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca10-11-08037/pdf/USCOURTS-ca10-11-08037-0.pdf","source_quote":"Wyoming recognizes a “limited exception to the at-will employment doctrine” for a termination that violates public policy.","second_source_url":"https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2001/01/art1full.PDF","second_source_quote":"Only six western States—Alaska, California, Idaho, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming—recognize all three of the major exceptions.","verified_at":"2026-09-24","status":"verified"}]}],"dataset":{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"Dataset","name":"Exceptions to at-will employment by state (Employer Desk)","description":"Exceptions to at-will employment: rules for all 50 states and DC, each verified against official sources, or marked as not verified with the official place to check.","url":"https://interobservers.com/desk/laws/at-will-employment-by-state/","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/","isAccessibleForFree":true,"creator":{"@type":"Organization","name":"InterObservers","url":"https://interobservers.com/"},"dateModified":"2026-09-24","spatialCoverage":{"@type":"Place","name":"United States"},"isBasedOn":["https://courts.delaware.gov/forms/download.aspx?id=85928","https://ctd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/022205.JCH_.Wood_.pdf","https://ctd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/111600.AVC_.Gallo_.pdf","https://dlr.sd.gov/employment_laws/termination.aspx","https://efte.twc.texas.gov/texas-guidebook-for-employers-2024.pdf","https://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/title_0390/chapter_0020/part_0090/section_0040/0390-0020-0090-0040.html","https://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/19-1233P-01A.pdf","https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/supct/2014/OPA111481-010214.pdf","https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/supct/2026/OPA241897-081226.pdf","https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=285.575","https://wsd.dli.mt.gov/_docs/business-services/model-employee-handbook.pdf","https://www.azleg.gov/ars/23/01501.htm","https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2001/01/art1full.PDF","https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/01013150966.pdf","https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/01019539596.pdf","https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/01019543879.pdf","https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/231406.P.pdf","https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/Opinions/pub/02/02-50542.cv0.wpd.pdf","https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/00/00-60299.cv0.wpd.pdf","https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/24/24-60603.0.pdf","https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/media/19708","https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/909750.pdf","https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/952698.pdf","https://www.courtswv.gov/sites/default/pubfilesmnt/2024-04/22-609%20and%2022-610-wooton-p_4.pdf","https://www.courtswv.gov/sites/default/pubfilesmnt/2024-10/22-631%20md.pdf","https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/opinions/00-803.pdf","https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/opinions/01-819.pdf","https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/opinions/14-1126.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-almd-3_11-cv-01018/pdf/USCOURTS-almd-3_11-cv-01018-1.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-alnd-2_12-cv-00205/pdf/USCOURTS-alnd-2_12-cv-00205-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-alnd-2_12-cv-03493/pdf/USCOURTS-alnd-2_12-cv-03493-1.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ared-4_07-cv-00084/pdf/USCOURTS-ared-4_07-cv-00084-2.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ared-4_10-cv-01294/pdf/USCOURTS-ared-4_10-cv-01294-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-arwd-1_03-cv-01170/pdf/USCOURTS-arwd-1_03-cv-01170-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-01015/pdf/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-01015-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca1-13-01722/pdf/USCOURTS-ca1-13-01722-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca10-06-05205/pdf/USCOURTS-ca10-06-05205-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca10-11-08037/pdf/USCOURTS-ca10-11-08037-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca10-89-05012/pdf/USCOURTS-ca10-89-05012-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca10-94-05197/pdf/USCOURTS-ca10-94-05197-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca7-08-03203/pdf/USCOURTS-ca7-08-03203-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca7-13-03412/pdf/USCOURTS-ca7-13-03412-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca7-22-01521/pdf/USCOURTS-ca7-22-01521-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01922/pdf/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01922-1.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-04397/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-04397-1.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-02835/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-02835-1.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-05457/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-05457-1.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cod-1_15-cv-02418/pdf/USCOURTS-cod-1_15-cv-02418-10.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cod-1_19-cv-00694/pdf/USCOURTS-cod-1_19-cv-00694-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_10-cv-00900/pdf/USCOURTS-dcd-1_10-cv-00900-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_15-cv-01700/pdf/USCOURTS-dcd-1_15-cv-01700-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_17-cv-01453/pdf/USCOURTS-dcd-1_17-cv-01453-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-dcd-1_23-cv-02249/pdf/USCOURTS-dcd-1_23-cv-02249-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-hid-1_11-cv-00326/pdf/USCOURTS-hid-1_11-cv-00326-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-hid-1_14-cv-00155/pdf/USCOURTS-hid-1_14-cv-00155-5.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-hid-1_14-cv-00171/pdf/USCOURTS-hid-1_14-cv-00171-4.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-hid-1_14-cv-00344/pdf/USCOURTS-hid-1_14-cv-00344-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-insd-1_06-cv-00779/pdf/USCOURTS-insd-1_06-cv-00779-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-insd-1_11-cv-01482/pdf/USCOURTS-insd-1_11-cv-01482-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ksd-2_04-cv-02601/pdf/USCOURTS-ksd-2_04-cv-02601-1.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ksd-2_15-cv-09121/pdf/USCOURTS-ksd-2_15-cv-09121-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ksd-6_05-cv-01300/pdf/USCOURTS-ksd-6_05-cv-01300-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-kyed-5_16-cv-00463/pdf/USCOURTS-kyed-5_16-cv-00463-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-kywd-1_12-cv-00014/pdf/USCOURTS-kywd-1_12-cv-00014-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-laed-2_11-cv-02659/pdf/USCOURTS-laed-2_11-cv-02659-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-mad-1_13-cv-12200/pdf/USCOURTS-mad-1_13-cv-12200-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-mad-1_13-cv-12927/pdf/USCOURTS-mad-1_13-cv-12927-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-med-1_08-cv-00400/pdf/USCOURTS-med-1_08-cv-00400-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-med-1_18-cv-00164/pdf/USCOURTS-med-1_18-cv-00164-1.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-mied-2_16-cv-12840/pdf/USCOURTS-mied-2_16-cv-12840-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-mied-3_22-cv-10449/pdf/USCOURTS-mied-3_22-cv-10449-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-miwd-1_04-cv-00835/pdf/USCOURTS-miwd-1_04-cv-00835-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-miwd-1_04-cv-00836/pdf/USCOURTS-miwd-1_04-cv-00836-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-moed-4_17-cv-02876/pdf/USCOURTS-moed-4_17-cv-02876-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ncmd-1_12-cv-00286/pdf/USCOURTS-ncmd-1_12-cv-00286-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ncmd-1_24-cv-00323/pdf/USCOURTS-ncmd-1_24-cv-00323-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ncmd-1_24-cv-00399/pdf/USCOURTS-ncmd-1_24-cv-00399-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ncwd-5_24-cv-00192/pdf/USCOURTS-ncwd-5_24-cv-00192-1.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ned-4_09-cv-03176/pdf/USCOURTS-ned-4_09-cv-03176-3.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nhd-1_12-cv-00077/pdf/USCOURTS-nhd-1_12-cv-00077-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nhd-1_12-cv-00482/pdf/USCOURTS-nhd-1_12-cv-00482-2.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-njd-1_02-cv-04722/pdf/USCOURTS-njd-1_02-cv-04722-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-njd-1_08-cv-03740/pdf/USCOURTS-njd-1_08-cv-03740-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-njd-1_15-cv-06284/pdf/USCOURTS-njd-1_15-cv-06284-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-njd-2_05-cv-01880/pdf/USCOURTS-njd-2_05-cv-01880-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-njd-3_17-cv-06237/pdf/USCOURTS-njd-3_17-cv-06237-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nmd-1_05-cv-00461/pdf/USCOURTS-nmd-1_05-cv-00461-2.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nmd-1_11-cv-00109/pdf/USCOURTS-nmd-1_11-cv-00109-1.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nmd-1_12-cv-00261/pdf/USCOURTS-nmd-1_12-cv-00261-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nmd-1_16-cv-01144/pdf/USCOURTS-nmd-1_16-cv-01144-3.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nyed-2_07-cv-04719/pdf/USCOURTS-nyed-2_07-cv-04719-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nyed-2_09-cv-03135/pdf/USCOURTS-nyed-2_09-cv-03135-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nynd-5_02-cv-01112/pdf/USCOURTS-nynd-5_02-cv-01112-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ohnd-3_07-cv-01084/pdf/USCOURTS-ohnd-3_07-cv-01084-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ohnd-3_11-cv-00236/pdf/USCOURTS-ohnd-3_11-cv-00236-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ohnd-3_18-cv-00538/pdf/USCOURTS-ohnd-3_18-cv-00538-1.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ohsd-1_07-cv-00276/pdf/USCOURTS-ohsd-1_07-cv-00276-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ohsd-1_20-cv-00813/pdf/USCOURTS-ohsd-1_20-cv-00813-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ohsd-2_15-cv-02223/pdf/USCOURTS-ohsd-2_15-cv-02223-1.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-oked-6_07-cv-00250/pdf/USCOURTS-oked-6_07-cv-00250-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-okwd-5_16-cv-00817/pdf/USCOURTS-okwd-5_16-cv-00817-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ord-3_06-cv-01012/pdf/USCOURTS-ord-3_06-cv-01012-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ord-3_07-cv-01002/pdf/USCOURTS-ord-3_07-cv-01002-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ord-3_16-cv-02072/pdf/USCOURTS-ord-3_16-cv-02072-2.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ord-3_23-cv-00085/pdf/USCOURTS-ord-3_23-cv-00085-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ord-3_23-cv-00136/pdf/USCOURTS-ord-3_23-cv-00136-1.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ord-6_04-cv-06326/pdf/USCOURTS-ord-6_04-cv-06326-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-paed-2_02-cv-01121/pdf/USCOURTS-paed-2_02-cv-01121-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-paed-2_09-cv-01547/pdf/USCOURTS-paed-2_09-cv-01547-2.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-paed-2_10-cv-00792/pdf/USCOURTS-paed-2_10-cv-00792-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-pawd-2_09-cv-00804/pdf/USCOURTS-pawd-2_09-cv-00804-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-rid-1_05-cv-00500/pdf/USCOURTS-rid-1_05-cv-00500-3.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-sdd-4_15-cv-04102/pdf/USCOURTS-sdd-4_15-cv-04102-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-sdd-5_06-cv-05056/pdf/USCOURTS-sdd-5_06-cv-05056-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-tned-3_11-cv-00578/pdf/USCOURTS-tned-3_11-cv-00578-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-tned-3_12-cv-00120/pdf/USCOURTS-tned-3_12-cv-00120-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-tned-4_05-cv-00051/pdf/USCOURTS-tned-4_05-cv-00051-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-tnmd-3_12-cv-00261/pdf/USCOURTS-tnmd-3_12-cv-00261-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-tnmd-3_25-cv-00193/pdf/USCOURTS-tnmd-3_25-cv-00193-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-utd-2_03-cv-01088/pdf/USCOURTS-utd-2_03-cv-01088-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-wiwd-3_09-cv-00600/pdf/USCOURTS-wiwd-3_09-cv-00600-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-wvnd-5_06-cv-00154/pdf/USCOURTS-wvnd-5_06-cv-00154-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-wvnd-5_09-cv-00101/pdf/USCOURTS-wvnd-5_09-cv-00101-0.pdf","https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-wvnd-5_12-cv-00151/pdf/USCOURTS-wvnd-5_12-cv-00151-1.pdf","https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/Resources/0171cea8-2a18-4ebd-9bdb-d796ff970ccb/107317.pdf","https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/Resources/3343ae58-266c-4680-a327-24f2a05ca65d/1060239.pdf","https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/Resources/b6fbbd9e-7b54-4f38-910f-5f4d550c0633/1022871.htm","https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/resources/40d9756e-43de-4ca2-be1f-e1042d276ec7/file","https://www.iowacourts.gov/courtcases/139/embed/SupremeCourtOpinion","https://www.iowacourts.gov/courtcases/16905/embed/SupremeCourtOpinion","https://www.jud.ct.gov/JI/Civil/Civil.pdf","https://www.jud.ct.gov/lawjournal/Docs/CTReports/2023/12/cr346_8438.pdf","https://www.mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/coa/2011/115a10.pdf","https://www.mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/cosa/1995/1866s94.pdf","https://www.mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/cosa/2013/1797s11.pdf","https://www.mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/cosa/2015/0369s14.pdf","https://www.ncmd.uscourts.gov/sites/ncmd/files/opinions/24CV450moo.pdf","https://www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/public/viewAdvanced?docId=N00012072PUB","https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2006/2006_50104.htm","https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/14a0117p-06.pdf","https://www.vacourts.gov/static/opinions/opnscvwp/1960530.pdf","https://www.vacourts.gov/static/opinions/opnscvwp/1990399.pdf"],"distribution":[{"@type":"DataDownload","encodingFormat":"application/json","contentUrl":"https://interobservers.com/api/v1/rules/at_will_exceptions.json"}]}}