Sheets v. Teddy’s Frosted Foods

1980 Connecticut Supreme Court

• Plaintiff, Sheets, claiming he was wrongly dismissed as quality control director, by defendant employer, Teddy’s Frosted Foods.
• Lower court found employment was employment at will and thus employer has right to terminate employee without cause.
• Supreme Court decides case under tort law, rather than contract law. Grants ‘tort’ of unlawful discharge.
• Defendant had drawn employer’s attention to numerous violations of FDA regulations in labelling, claims he was fired for attempting to insure compliance with FDA.
• Publicy Policy consideration: want to promote adherence to FDA rules.
• Difference between tort and contract doctrine of wrongful discharge: ? Damages–intentional torts can give rise to punitive damages.
? Don’t want to disturb too much existing contract doctrine.

• Collateral source rule: in torts, don’t consider other sources in reducing damages, whereas in contract, damages are reduced by other sources.
• By switching from contract to tort law, Court puts burden of proof on employee–needs to show that employer had malicious reason for termination, and then prove it.
• Gilmore’s ‘death of contract’–thesis that tort law is subsuming contract law. Court is not necessarily subsuming contract with tort, but is finding this to be appropriate place to apply tort law rather than contract law. (Judge and Gilmore were on Yale faculty simultaneously).
• Different use of pubic policy: in previous cases we’ve looked at, public policy has been used defensively (contract should not be enforced because it would violate public policy). In this case, public policy is being used affirmatively, to craft new tort/give cause of action.
• Arguments against wrongful discharge tort: ? Frivolous litigation
? Threats to employers
? Overturning contract law and right of employer to fire someone at will

Author: international