Replies

He didn't go to jail, he was dismissed for knowingly violating workplace rules.

Note that the employer did nothing wrong, as evident by the fact that they weren't charged with anything.

In fact, the best proof that the employer was doing something not only legal, but within their rights, is the fact that in order to stop the employer from continuing to do what they were doing, the legislature had to make it illegal.

What does that mean?

It means that what was done WAS LEGAL IN EVERY SENSE OF THE WORD.

"In fact, the best proof that the employer was doing something not only legal, but within their rights, is the fact that in order to stop the employer from continuing to do what they were doing, the legislature had to make it illegal. "

Nope. The legislature recognized that the employee's rights were being violated. I already outlined it and the legislature's floor commentary I'm sure affirms it. Laws like this are created, because the rights violations are recognized first. Folks don't make laws and then say, "Oh look, here's a new law that defines some new rights violation."

"It means that what was done WAS LEGAL IN EVERY SENSE OF THE WORD."I posted a link to a relevant analysis above and considerable comment on how the facts of this case fit the following test.

Henry Perritt Jr., one of this country's foremost scholars on labor and employment law, advocates a comprehensive test for analyzing wrongful discharge claims involving violations of public policy. Perritt proposes four elements of a public policy tort case:

(1) The plaintiffs must prove the existence of a clear public policy (the clarity element). Henry H. Perritt Jr., Workplace Torts: Rights and Liabilities § 3.7 (1991) (hereinafter Perritt).

(2) The plaintiffs must prove that discouraging the conduct in which they engaged would jeopardize the public policy (the jeopardy element). Perritt § 3.14.

(3) The plaintiffs must prove that the public-policy-linked conduct caused the dismissal (the causation element). Perritt § 3.19.

(4) The defendant must not be able to offer an overriding justification for the dismissal (the absence of justification element). Perritt § 3.21. See also Collins v. Rizkana, 73 Ohio St.3d 65, 69-70, 652 N.E.2d 653 (1995) (adopting Perritt's four element test).

The employer could have been sued for wrongful termination. The legislature created the law as above and to releive the citizens of OK from similar attempts by employers to usurp their rights.