## Facts

- Joseph Murphy worked for American Home Products Corporation (AHP) from 1957, ultimately serving as assistant treasurer, without a formal employment contract.
- AHP terminated Murphy on April 18, 1980, when he was 59 years old.
- Murphy alleged he was fired in retaliation for reporting and refusing to participate in allegedly illegal accounting manipulations involving pension reserves and executive incentive bonuses.
- Murphy also alleged age bias, claiming a senior officer stated he could not legally fire Murphy due to age but would limit his advancement, and that Murphy’s age contributed to the dismissal.
- Murphy sued for damages, asserting wrongful (abusive) discharge, intentional infliction of emotional distress, prima facie tort, breach of contract (including an alleged duty of good faith), and age discrimination under New York’s Human Rights Law.

## Issues

1. Whether New York recognizes a tort or contract cause of action for abusive or wrongful discharge of an at-will employee allegedly terminated for whistleblowing or refusing illegal conduct.
2. Whether a judicial age-discrimination claim under New York Executive Law § 296 is governed by CPLR 214(2)’s three-year limitations period or a one-year period referenced in Executive Law § 296(5).

## Decision

- The New York Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of Murphy’s wrongful discharge, emotional distress, prima facie tort, and contract-based claims.
- The court declined to recognize a common-law cause of action for wrongful discharge of an at-will employee, stating any such change must come from the Legislature.
- The court reinstated Murphy’s statutory age-discrimination claim, holding it was governed by CPLR 214(2)’s three-year statute of limitations rather than a one-year period.

## Legal Principles

- In New York, employment for an indefinite term is terminable at will, and an employer may discharge an at-will employee absent a constitutionally impermissible purpose, a statutory proscription, or an express contractual limitation.
- New York does not recognize a general common-law tort of abusive or wrongful discharge; courts will not create a public-policy exception for whistleblowing or refusal to engage in unlawful conduct without legislative action.
- Claims cannot avoid the at-will rule by repackaging a discharge as intentional infliction of emotional distress, prima facie tort, or breach of contract where the pleaded facts do not fit those established causes of action.
- An implied covenant or generalized duty of good faith does not restrict an employer’s right to terminate an at-will employee absent an express contractual limitation.
- A judicial action for unlawful employment discrimination under New York’s Human Rights Law enforces a liability created by statute and is subject to the three-year limitations period in CPLR 214(2).

## Conclusion

The court held that New York’s at-will rule bars common-law wrongful discharge and related tort/contract theories on these allegations, but it revived the statutory age-discrimination claim because such actions are governed by CPLR 214(2)’s three-year limitations period.


Murphy v. Am. Home Prods. Corp., 58 N.Y.2d 293 (1983)