## Facts

- Wayne G. Tatge worked for Chambers & Owen, Inc. from 1981 until he was discharged in 1993.
- In 1990, the company issued an employee handbook; Tatge signed an acknowledgment stating his employment was at-will, terminable at the employer’s discretion with or without cause or notice, and noncontractual absent a board-authorized written agreement.
- In 1993, the employer asked Tatge to sign a “Management Agreement” containing confidentiality and non-competition provisions.
- The parties later stipulated the agreement’s nondisclosure provision was unreasonable and unenforceable under Wis. Stat. § 103.465.
- Tatge alleged the company president assured him that “nothing would happen” if he refused to sign and that he would be terminated only for cause.
- After Tatge again refused to sign, he was fired immediately.
- Tatge sued alleging wrongful discharge, breach of contract, and negligent (and related) misrepresentation based on the job-security assurances and statements about the consequences of refusing to sign.

## Issues

1. Whether alleged job-security assurances and employment-terms representations can support a tort claim for misrepresentation when they are tied to the employment relationship rather than an independent duty.
2. Whether the public-policy exception to at-will employment permits a wrongful-discharge claim where an at-will employee is fired for refusing to sign restrictive covenants that are unreasonable and unenforceable under Wis. Stat. § 103.465.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for Chambers & Owen, Inc.
- It held that Tatge’s misrepresentation theories were not actionable in tort because they concerned obligations and expectations arising from the employment relationship, not an independent legal duty.
- It held that discharge for refusing to sign a non-disclosure/non-compete agreement— even if unreasonable under § 103.465—does not fall within Wisconsin’s narrow public-policy wrongful-discharge exception.

## Legal Principles

- A tort claim in this context requires breach of a duty independent of contract; an asserted misrepresentation that merely restates alleged breaches or promises about employment terms does not create an independent tort.
- Courts will not allow misrepresentation theories that would convert ordinary disputes over employment terms into tort liability.
- Wisconsin’s public-policy wrongful-discharge exception for at-will employees is narrow and requires a discharge that violates a fundamental and well-defined public policy evidenced in existing law.
- Wis. Stat. § 103.465 voids unreasonable restrictive covenants, but does not create a public policy that limits an employer’s ability to terminate an at-will employee for refusing to sign such covenants; the statutory consequence is unenforceability of the restraint.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed dismissal of Tatge’s claims, holding that employment-related assurances about job security and the effect of refusing a restrictive-covenant agreement could not be recast as actionable misrepresentation torts, and that § 103.465 does not supply the type of public policy needed to support a wrongful-discharge claim for an at-will employee terminated for refusing to sign an unreasonable restraint.


Tatge v. Chambers & Owen, Inc., 579 N.W.2d 217 (Wis. 1998)