Kearl v. Portage Environmental

28 Citing cases

  1. Brown v. Premier Roofing, LLC

    173 F. Supp. 3d 1181 (D. Colo. 2016)   Cited 11 times
    Applying Colorado law

    An employee may state a claim for termination in violation of public policy by alleging that she was employed by the defendant, the defendant fired her, and the defendant discharged her “(1) in retaliation for exercising a job-related right or performing a specific statutory duty, or (2) that the termination would undermine a clearly expressed public policy.” Underwood v. GEO Group, Inc., No. 10–cv–306–LTB–KLM, 2011 WL 5593150, at *15 (D.Colo.2011) (unpublished) (quoting Kearl v. Portage Environmental, Inc. 205 P.3d 496, 499 (Colo.App.2008) ) (numbers added). Regarding the second category, if an employer fires an employee for “engaging in conduct that is protected or encouraged as a matter of public policy,” that employee may have a viable cause of action.

  2. Cejka v. Vectrus Sys. Corp.

    291 F. Supp. 3d 1231 (D. Colo. 2018)   Cited 2 times

    (3)(b) the discharge would undermine a clearly expressed public policy.Kearl v. Portage Envtl., Inc. , 205 P.3d 496, 499 (Colo. App. 2008) (citing Lorenz , 823 P.2d at 109 and Lathrop v. Entenmann's, Inc. , 770 P.2d 1367, 1373 (Colo. App. 1989) ). "[U]nder the third prong, in order to survive summary judgment, a plaintiff must ‘present evidence that [his] termination was causally connected to [his exercise of a job-related right or performance of a statutory duty].’ " Angell v. Fairmount Fire Prot. Dist. , 907 F.Supp.2d 1242, 1256 (D. Colo. 2012). "Additionally, the plaintiff must allege that the ‘public policy invoked truly impacts the public in order to justify interference into an employer's business decisions.

  3. Cejka v. Vectrus Sys. Corp.

    292 F. Supp. 3d 1175 (D. Colo. 2018)   Cited 7 times

    (3)(b) the discharge would undermine a clearly expressed public policy. Kearl v. Portage Envtl., Inc. , 205 P.3d 496, 499 (Colo. App. 2008) (citing Lorenz , 823 P.2d at 109 and Lathrop v. Entenmann's, Inc. , 770 P.2d 1367, 1373 (Colo. App. 1989) ). "[U]nder the third prong, in order to survive summary judgment, a plaintiff must ‘present evidence that [his] termination was causally connected to [his exercise of a job-related right or performance of a statutory duty].’ " Angell v. Fairmount Fire Prot. Dist. , 907 F.Supp.2d 1242, 1256 (D. Colo. 2012). "Additionally, the plaintiff must allege that the ‘public policy invoked truly impacts the public in order to justify interference into an employer's business decisions.’ "

  4. Sidlo v. MillerCoors, LLC

    718 F. App'x 718 (10th Cir. 2018)   Cited 31 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that under Colorado law an implied contract of employment exists if the employer manifested an intent to enter into a binding contract and the employee's continued employment constituted acceptance of and consideration for the promise

    " [T]he public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine is not subject to precise definition, yet is grounded in the notion that an employer should be prohibited from discharging an employee with impunity for reasons that contravene widely accepted and substantial public policies." Kearl v. Portage Envtl., Inc., 205 P.3d 496, 498 (Colo.App. 2008). The plaintiff must allege that the " public policy invoked 'truly impacts the public in order to justify interference into an employer's business decisions.'"

  5. Defazio v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.

    554 F. App'x 692 (10th Cir. 2014)   Cited 4 times
    Noting in connection with a claim of wrongful discharge of public policy that the employee-plaintiff "failed to identify any statute, rule, or public policy implicated by his dismissal" after determining that the employer-defendant's Code of Business Conduct did not bar the plaintiff's discharge

    R. at 274-75; see also Jaynes, 148 P.3d at 243-47. Mr. DeFazio suggests a different result is required by Kearl v. Portage Environmental, Inc., 205 P.3d 496 (Colo. App. 2008), and Haynes v. Poudre Valley Health Care, Inc., No. 09-cv-01956-WYD-BNB, 2011 WL 1225590 (D. Colo. Mar. 31, 2011), but we cannot agree. In the first case, the Colorado Court of Appeals found "a clearly expressed public policy" against terminating employees in retaliation for their attempt to expose or prevent efforts by their employers to defraud the government.

  6. Moreno v. Circle K Stores, Inc.

    713 F. Supp. 3d 1069 (D. Colo. 2024)   Cited 1 times

    However, an exception to this general rule exists that "allows at-will employees to pursue claims for wrongful discharge if they allege that they were discharged because they engaged in conduct that is protected or encouraged as a matter of public policy." Kearl v. Portage Env't, Inc., 205 P.3d 496, 498-99 (Colo. App. 2008). To establish a prima facie case of wrongful termination in violation of public policy, the plaintiff must demonstrate that:

  7. Oldenburg v. Am. Modern Ins. Co.

    Civil Action No. 19-cv-00111-RBJ (D. Colo. May. 12, 2020)

    Under the first category, "a plaintiff may state a claim for retaliatory discharge in violation of public policy by alleging that: (1) she was employed by the defendant; (2) the defendant discharged her; and (3) the defendant discharged her 'in retaliation for exercising a job-related right or performing a specific statutory duty.'" Underwood, 2011 WL 5593150, at *15 (citing Kearl v. Portage Envtl., Inc., 205 P.3d 496, 499 (Colo. App. 2008)).

  8. Kirkland v. Robert W. Baird & Co.

    Civil Action No. 18-cv-02724-MSK-SKC (D. Colo. Mar. 25, 2020)   Cited 4 times
    Applying Colorado law

    In contrast, for a claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, a plaintiff must allege that he was discharged "(1) in retaliation for exercising a job-related right or performing a specific statutory duty, or (2) that the termination would undermine a clearly expressed public policy." Brown v. Premier Roofing, LLC, 173 F. Supp. 3d 1181, 1184-85 (D.Colo. 2016) (citing Underwood v. GEO Group, Inc., No. 10-cv-306-LTB-KLM, 2011 WL 5593150, at *15 (D.Colo. 2011) (quoting Kearl v. Portage Environmental, Inc. 205 P.3d 496, 499 (Colo.App. 2008)). The Court need not reach the question of whether the proposed amendment is futile and expresses no opinion as to whether Mr. Kirkland's proposed Amended Complaint can state a claim for wrongful discharge.

  9. Mullin v. Hyatt Residential Grp., Inc.

    82 F. Supp. 3d 1248 (D. Colo. 2015)   Cited 5 times

    An employee terminated for refusing to follow his employer's directive to engage in unethical or unlawful conduct could maintain a claim for wrongful discharge. Kearl v. Portage Envtl., Inc., 205 P.3d 496, 498 (Colo.App.2008). Additionally, an employee terminated for engaging in conduct that is protected or encouraged as a matter of public policy may also have a viable cause of action.

  10. Stuckens v. Sage Dining Servs.

    No. 22-1171 (10th Cir. Apr. 14, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    A plaintiff asserting such a claim must show "[1] that he or she was employed by the defendant; [2] that the defendant discharged him or her; and [3] that the defendant discharged him or her in retaliation for exercising a job-related right or performing a specific statutory duty, or that the termination would undermine a clearly expressed public policy." Kearl v. Portage Env't, Inc., 205 P.3d 496, 499 (Colo.App. 2008) (citing Lorenz, 823 P.2d at 109). "[The] public policy must concern behavior that truly impacts the public in order to justify interference into an employer's business decisions."