Hausman v. St. Croix Care Center:
Stretching the Employment-At-Will Doctrine
In Hausman v. St. Croix Care Center, the Wisconsin Supreme
Court expanded the public policy exception to the employment-at-will
doctrine to protect private sector employees who "whistle blow" when
they have a legal duty to do so. The authors explore the rationale
behind the decision, the decision's effects, and the changes it has
brought about in employment and health care law.
t. Croix Care Center (SCCC), a private nursing
facility in Prescott, Wis., employed Jane Hausman, a social worker, as
the director of social services. She and coworker Karen Wright, an LPN,
were members of an interdisciplinary care team responsible for ensuring
that SCCC provided appropriate care to its residents. In 1992 and 1993,
Hausman and Wright brought concerns of suspected abuse and neglect of
residents to the director of nursing and eventually to SCCC's
administrators, but no action or investigation was undertaken. Hausman
then contacted the regional ombudsman for the Board on Aging and Long
Term Care, who investigated their concerns. At Hausman's request, the
ombudsman contacted the state agency, the Bureau of Quality Control.
Both Hausman and Wright were terminated shortly thereafter. Hausman was
terminated in July 1993 for alleged unprofessional conduct and breach of
confidentiality. The St. Croix Care Center terminated Wright in
September 1993, citing budgetary constraints.
Hausman and Wright initially filed an
administrative complaint against SCCC with the Equal Rights Division
(ERD), alleging a violation of section 46.90 of the Wisconsin Statutes.
Because that statute protected only those who reported to the designated
county agency, rather than the ombudsman, their claim was dismissed by
the ERD and Labor & Industry Review Commission (LIRC), which
dismissal was affirmed by the circuit court.1 They also filed a common law wrongful
discharge complaint in circuit court, alleging that they were discharged
for reporting suspected abuse and neglect, in violation of the public
policy that encourages the reporting of abuse and neglect of the
elderly, embodied in section 46.90.
Although Wisconsin generally recognizes that employees are employed
"at will," and can be discharged for any reason not prohibited by law,
the Wisconsin Supreme Court had earlier recognized a public policy
exception to employment-at-will in a 1983 case, Brockmeyer v. Dun
& Bradstreet.2 This
exception resulted in a line of employment cases defining the parameters
of the public policy exception. At the time Hausman arose, case
law provided that employees have a cause of action for wrongful
discharge if they are discharged for refusing a command, instruction, or
request of their employer to violate public policy as established by
existing law.
Because Hausman and Wright had not refused a command or request to
violate public policy, their wrongful discharge claim was dismissed by
the circuit court, which decision was upheld by the Wisconsin Court of
Appeals.3 However, in December
1997, in Jane Hausman and Karen Wright v.
St. Croix Care Center,4 the Wisconsin Supreme Court took the
opportunity to expand the public policy exception to the
employment-at-will doctrine to protect private sector employees who
"whistle-blow" when they have a legal duty to do so.
This article explores the rationale behind the decision in
Hausman, the effects of the decision, and the changes it has
brought about in employment and health care law. Authored by the two
opposing attorneys in the Hausman case, two different perspectives of
the case are presented. Because the case was decided on defendant's
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the two sides have
stipulated to the facts of the case as alleged in the first paragraph of
this article.
Wisconsin
Lawyer
