RE: Agis discharge

[Jennifer Loraine Swize <jls5ec@cms.mail.virginia.edu>]

Thanks for your helpful thoughts. I admit that, in my 
analysis, I wasn't thinking about third-party effects as 
Agis' justification for a legal remedy. I suppose I was 
trying to make a philosophical argument to legitimize Agis' 
claim.

Given that reality requires her claim to be grounded in 
contract law or third-party effects, even if my idea has 
some merit philosophically or ethically, I can see how it 
isn't likely to be successful.  Maybe with an activist 
court....

-Jennifer

On Fri, 18 Feb 2000 15:04:21 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) 
Jennifer K T Warner <jkw4d@cms.mail.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
> Are you saying that this might be grounds for some sort 
> of public policy tort, because there is a third party 
> effect? This is an interesting argument.  I wonder 
> though, if it would fail because the third parties are 
> not the public at large (as may be effected say by an 
> exploding Pinto), but rather co-employees.  Would the 
> other employees be third parties or a sort of pseudo-same 
> party because they are in the same private 
> employer-employee relationship.  I don't know, but you 
> pose an interesting question.
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2000 13:07:40 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) 
> Jennifer Loraine Swize <jls5ec@cms.mail.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
> > Isn't anyone else tired of hearing Professor Verkerke 
> > express his dejection about no e-mails on the class list? 
> 
> > (No offense, Professor.)
> > > Well, I decided, why not throw out this thought that's 
> been > on my mind.
> > > Going back to our study of Intentional Infliction of 
> > Emotional Distress, claims, there was a note after the 
> Agis > case (note 1, p. 169) that made me stop and think, 
> asking > why Agis has any claim since she was hired at 
> will. (She > was the waitress fired for her last name 
> beginning with 'A' > in a plan by the restaurant to deter 
> thefts.) > 
> > It does seem, at first glance, that Agis (and so many of 
> > these other plaintiffs hired at will) would have no 
> remedy > since she could be fired for a good, bad, or no 
> reason.  But > that's troublesome.
> > > So I am wondering what you think of a possible response:
> > that Agis does have a claim because her firing involved > 
> more than the employer-employee relationship since the > 
> employer (Howard Johnson) was using Agis' firing to get at 
> > others. In other words, since Agis was being used as 
> means, > the firing extended beyond the two-party 
> relationship of > employer-employee and thus a remedy 
> exists, regardless of > the at-will employment status.
> > > Does that make any sense to anyone??
>