Campbell v. Husky Hogs, L.L.C.
255 P.3d 1
Kan.2011Background
- Campbell, an at-will employee, was fired about one day after filing a KWPA wage claim against Husky Hogs, L.L.C.
- District court dismissed the suit as lacking a recognized common-law retaliatory discharge exception and because KWPA remedies were adequate.
- Campbell asserted a first-impression public-policy exception to protect wage-claim rights under KWPA.
- Court noted long Kansas history recognizing limited retaliatory-discharge exceptions to protect public policy.
- Court found KWPA embeds public policy to protect wage earners and unpaid wages and held KWPA remedies are not an adequate substitute for a common-law retaliatory-discharge claim.
- Case reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a common-law retaliatory discharge claim exists for KWPA claims | Campbell argues public policy supports an exception | Husky Hogs argues no recognized exception exists | Yes; a retaliatory-discharge claim exists. |
| Whether KWPA implies public policy supporting retaliation claim | KWPA's structure implies protection of wage claims | Public policy must be express or clearly implied by statute | Public policy embedded in KWPA supports implication. |
| Whether KWPA provides an adequate substitute remedy for the retaliation claim | KWPA remedies do not fully compensate for wrongful termination | KWPA adequate for wage claim | KWPA is not an adequate substitute remedy. |
| Whether Campbell stated a prima facie retaliatory-discharge claim | Facts allege filing KWPA claim caused termination | pleadings insufficient to show causation or injury at early stage | Pleadings state a prima facie retaliatory-discharge claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. City of Topeka, 6 Kan. App. 2d 488, 630 P.2d 186 (1981) (1981) (first Kansas case recognizing retaliatory discharge based on workers' compensation claim)
- Anco Constr. Co. v. Freeman, 236 Kan. 626, 693 P.2d 1183 (1985) (1985) (public-policy-based retaliatory-discharge exception affirmed)
- Coleman v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 242 Kan. 804, 752 P.2d 645 (1988) (1988) (discussed public-policy limitations on punitive damages under at-will doctrine)
- Hysten v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Ry. Co., 277 Kan. 551, 108 P.3d 437 (2004) (2004) (public-policy protection for statutory rights (FELA/workers comp) against retaliation)
- Flenker v. Willamette Industries, Inc., 266 Kan. 198, 967 P.2d 295 (1998) (1998) (criticized administrative-substitution reasoning in retaliation context)
- Rebarchek v. Farmers Co-op. Elevator & Mercantile Ass'n, 272 Kan. 546, 35 P.3d 892 (2001) (2001) (set out elements and framework for retaliatory-discharge claim under at-will doctrine)
- Coma Corporation v. Kansas Dept. of Labor, 283 Kan. 625, 154 P.3d 1080 (2007) (2007) (public policy protecting wage earners reaffirmed; undocumented worker context cited)
- Cox v. United Technologies, 240 Kan. 95, 727 P.2d 456 (1986) (1986) (recognition of retaliatory-discharge principles in workers' compensation context)