- 17 -
Respondent acknowledges on reply brief that the amounts
Katherine and Damian received from Maritz Inc. were “paid for the
‘personal damages’ stated in Suelthaus’ May 1994 letters to Henry
Stolar”. Respondent further concedes that “Missouri recognizes
‘intentional infliction of emotional distress’ as a personal
injury/tort-like cause of action.” Respondent does not dispute
that Katherine’s and Damian’s other common claims asserted in the
Suelthaus letters (i.e., the claims for defamation, infliction of
emotional distress, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience,
mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life) are also based on
personal injury torts.
We also find that Katherine’s claim for wrongful discharge
from employment constituted a bona fide tort claim. Katherine
was an at-will employee; i.e., she had no employment contract.
Historically, under Missouri law, an employer could generally
discharge an at-will employee with or without cause. See Johnson
v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 745 S.W.2d 661, 662 (Mo. 1988). A
number of Missouri appellate decisions, however, have recognized
that an at-will employee may have a “cause of action in tort for
damages for wrongful discharge”, where the discharge is in
violation of public policy. Boyle v. Vista Eyewear, Inc., 700
S.W.2d 859, 878 (Mo. Ct. App. 1985); see also Lynch v. Blanke
Baer & Bowey Krimko, Inc., 901 S.W.2d 147, 150 (Mo. Ct. App.
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011