- 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