Damian Gerard and Leigh H. Gerard - Page 18

                                       - 18 -                                         
          1995).6  We need not decide whether Katherine would have been               
          able to sustain a claim for wrongful discharge, since it is the             
          nature of the claim and not its validity that matters for present           
          purposes.  See, e.g., Mayberry v. United States, supra at 859               
          n.3.  We conclude that Katherine asserted a bona fide tort claim            
          for wrongful discharge and that Maritz Inc. recognized it as                
          such.7                                                                      
               Similarly, Damian’s claim for interference with his                    
          employment relationship falls within a larger category of claims            
          for tortious interference with a business relationship.  Such               
          tort claims are recognized under Missouri law.  See Salomon v.              
          Crown Life Ins. Co., 536 F.2d 1233, 1238 (8th Cir. 1976);                   
          Fischer, Spuhl, Herzwurm & Associates, Inc. v. Forrest T. Jones &           
          Co., 586 S.W.2d 310, 315 (Mo. 1979).                                        
               In sum, we conclude that the first element of Schleier is              
          met with respect to the various claims asserted on Katherine’s              




               6 Noting that it had neither “expressly defined nor adopted            
          the exception”, the Missouri Supreme Court in Luethans v. Wash.             
          Univ., 894 S.W.2d 169, 171 n.2 (Mo. 1995), stated that for                  
          purposes of that opinion “we assume that the public policy                  
          exception to the at-will employment doctrine exists.”                       
               7 Millard Backerman, the attorney who represented Maritz               
          Inc. in the settlement negotiations, testified that he believed             
          that he made inquiries at his law firm during the negotiations as           
          to whether an at-will employee could have a cause of action for             
          wrongful discharge in Missouri and was told “there is that                  
          possibility on some kind of a specialized tort action.”                     





Page:  Previous  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011