Intentional Interference wih Employment Contract
Posted on July 29th, 2008 in Employment Contracts | No Comments »
What happens when a supervisor terminates an employee for a purely personal reason? Does the employee have any recourse? If the employee is employed on an at-will basis, he/she may not have a claim against their employer, but they may, however, have a tort claim against their supervisor.
It has been said that it is the right of every individual to accept and retain employment without interference by third persons, especially where such interference is wanton or malicious. And, Tennessee courts agree. Hence, Tennessee recognizes a tort claim for intentional interference with employment against third persons, e.g., supervisors. Ladd v. Roane Hosiery, Inc., 556 S.W.2d 758 (Tenn. 1977).
Lyne v. Price, 2002 WL 1417177 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 27, 2002) provides a great discussion on the law and what it takes to establish an intentional interference with employment claim.
First, the Lyne court noted that a claim for intentional interference with employment contemplates a three-party relationship–the plaintiff as employee, the corporation as employer, and the defendants as procurers or inducers.
Second, while noting that an at-will employee can be terminated at any time for good cause, bad cause or no cause, the Lyne court stated that even an at-will employee has a property interest in continued employment without unjustified interference by those who stand outside the employment relationship. Therefore, where a third party intentionally and unjustifiably interferes with that employment interest by procuring the plaintiff’s termination, a cause of action will lie against the third party.
Third, as the Lyne court noted, a corporation may only act through its agents and employees; consequently, a corporate director, officer or employee is not individually liable for tortious interference with a corporate contract, such as an at-will employment agreement, so long as he is acting in furtherance of the corporate interest. But importantly, a corporate director, officer or employee may be held liable for interference with such a contract if he is acting outside the scope of his authority, acting with malice, or acting to serve his own interests.
In summary, a successful claim for intentional interference with employment will depend upon proof establishing that the supervisor terminated the plaintiff’s employment for purely personal reasons. What might these reasons be? They are as endless as the human imagination. For example, Supervisor’s son plays baseball on a team coached by Employee. Employee sits Supervisor’s son on the bench chossing to play another child instead. If the Supervisor terminates the Employee for benching his son, and this can be proven by admissible evidence, then the Employee will have a cause of action for intentional interference with emplyment against the Supervisor. This example may be far fetched, but then again it may not be! Any way, that’s the law in Tennessee.