"Indiana follows the doctrine of employment at will, under which employment may be terminated by either party at will, with or without a reason." Ogden v. Robertson, 962 N.E.2d 134, 145 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (citing Baker v. Tremco, 917 N.E.2d 650, 653 (Ind. 2009)). Employment in Indiana is strongly presumed to be at will.
Fritch argued that because Indiana Code Section 36-1-8-8 is a companion section to Indiana Code Section 4-15-10-4, the same reasoning applies. In February of this year, the Indiana Court of Appeals issued an opinion entitled Ogden v. Robertson which addresses the issue at hand: whether a plaintiff may bring a whistleblower claim under Indiana Code Section 4-15-10-4 in a court of law. 962 N.E.2d 134 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). In Ogden, the Court held that before a plaintiff may bring a cause of action under Indiana Code Section 4-15-10-4, the employee must first exhaust his or her administrative remedies prior to seeking judicial review.
Ind.Code § 4–15–10–4 (emphasis supplied).[13] In Ogden v. Robertson, 962 N.E.2d 134 (Ind.Ct.App.2012), trans. denied, the appellant argued that although subsection (c) provides an administrative appeals process for violations of the WBL, use of that process was not a mandatory prerequisite to judicial review. Id. at 144.
We will assume for argument's sake that Gul's actions herein constitute expressive activity that was restricted by state action. See Ogden v. Robertson, 962 N.E.2d 134, 141 (Ind.Ct.App.2012) (holding that “the Indiana Constitution more jealously protects freedom of speech guarantees than does the United States Constitution”), trans. denied. Turning to the second prong, Gul must prove that “the State could not reasonably conclude that the restricted expression was an ‘abuse.’ ”
Indiana applies a strong presumption that employment is at-will. Ogden v. Robertson, 962 N.E.2d 134, 145 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). To convert at-will employment to employment which may be terminated only for good cause, an employee must give adequate independent consideration for an employment contract. Speckman v. City of Indianapolis, 540 N.E.2d 1189, 1192 (Ind. 1989).
However, Indiana recognizes three narrow exceptions to the at-will doctrine, including, as is relevant here, "when clear statutory expression of a right or duty is contravened." Ogden v. Robertson, 962 N.E.2d 134, 145 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). This exception originates from the Indiana Supreme Court's decision in Frampton v. Cent. Ind. Gas Co., 297 N.E.2d 425 (1973).
Nonetheless, Indiana recognizes three narrow exceptions to the at-will doctrine: (1) when adequate independent consideration supports a contract; (2) when a clear statutory expression of a right or duty is contravened; and (3) when promissory estoppel applies. Ogden v. Robertson, 962 N.E.2d 134, 145 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
However, Indiana courts have recognized three exceptions to the at-will doctrine. Ogden v. Robertson, 962 N.E.2d 134, 145 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (explaining exceptions exist when adequate independent consideration supports a contract, when a clear statutory expression of a right or duty is contravened, or when promissory estoppel can be invoked). The Plaintiff argues that the public policy exception, as outlined in Frampton, applies to her termination.
Under Indiana law, "[t]here is a strong presumption that employ-ment...is at-will." Harris, 49 N.E.3d at 639 (citing Ogden v. Robertson, 962 N.E.2d 134, 145 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012)). There are three exceptions to the employment-at-will doctrine:
Indiana courts have recognized three exceptions to the at-will doctrine. Ogden v. Robertson, 962 N.E.2d 134, 145 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (explaining exceptions exist when adequate independent consideration supports a contract, when a clear statutory expression of a right or duty is contravened, or when promissory estoppel can be invoked). The Plaintiff argues that the public policy exception, as outlined in Frampton, applies to her termination.