## Facts

- Dr. Grace Pierce, a physician, worked for Ortho Pharmaceutical Corporation as Director of Medical Research/Therapeutics as an at-will employee.
- Her duties included supervising development of therapeutic drugs and establishing safety and effectiveness testing procedures.
- In 1975, she worked on development of loperamide, including a proposed liquid formulation containing saccharin at a concentration used in a European product.
- The development team ultimately decided to proceed with the saccharin-containing formulation; Dr. Pierce objected and refused to work on the project, citing medical ethics and her professional obligation to “do no harm.”
- Her supervisor removed her from the loperamide project and offered her other work; she viewed this as a demotion and resigned.
- Dr. Pierce sued, claiming she was effectively discharged for refusing to participate in conduct she believed was medically unethical and contrary to public policy.
- She did not identify any specific statute, regulation, or authoritative professional code that the project violated.

## Issues

1. Whether an at-will employee has a common-law claim for wrongful discharge when termination allegedly results from refusing to engage in conduct the employee believes is unethical.
2. Whether the employee must identify a “clear mandate of public policy,” and what qualifies as a sufficient source of that policy.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed the Appellate Division and reinstated summary judgment for Ortho.
- The court recognized a wrongful-discharge cause of action for at-will employees when the discharge violates a clear mandate of public policy.
- The court held that Dr. Pierce failed, as a matter of law, to show a sufficiently clear public-policy mandate prohibiting the loperamide work she refused to perform.

## Legal Principles

- An employer’s right to terminate an at-will employee is limited when the termination contravenes a clear mandate of public policy.
- A clear mandate of public policy must be grounded in objective, identifiable sources such as legislation, administrative rules or decisions, regulations, or (in appropriate cases) specific, authoritative professional ethical codes.
- Generalized moral views or broadly stated ethical precepts, without a concrete and applicable policy standard, do not supply the required public-policy mandate.
- To survive summary judgment, a plaintiff must connect the refusal (or other protected conduct) to a clearly articulated public-policy source that would be undermined by the discharge.

## Conclusion

The court accepted a narrow public-policy exception to employment at will, but held that an employee’s sincere ethical objection, unsupported by a clearly defined legal or professional policy standard applicable to the employer’s conduct, does not state a wrongful-discharge claim.


Pierce v. Ortho Pharm. Corp., 84 N.J. 58, 417 A.2d 505 (1980)