Mississippi Supreme Court Shuts Door on Common Law Employment Discrimination Claims
Mississippi is an at-will state, meaning an employee can be fired for good reason, bad reason, or no reason at all. The Mississippi Supreme Court just made it harder for employees to claim discrimination as a way to get around this rule. In Thomas v. Southern Farm Bureau Life Insurance Company, the Court refused to create a new exception to the at-will employment doctrine.
Exceptions to the At-Will Doctrine
There are already exceptions to this rule, including reasons declared legally impermissible. In the past, “legally impermissible” referred to statutes that contain a private right of action. But in Swindol v. Aurora Flight Sciences Corp., the Mississippi Supreme Court cast doubt on this seemingly settled principle. In Swindol, an employee was fired for having a firearm inside his locked vehicle. The Court held that the Legislature had independently declared this termination legally impermissible, though the statute itself did not contain a private right of action.
Post-Swindol, terminated employees have tried to bring common law wrongful discharge claims based on discrimination. This had some appeal because statutes such as Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) already declared this “legally impermissible.” However, the Mississippi Supreme Court rejected this approach in Thomas.
The Argument for a New Discrimination Exception
In Thomas, the plaintiffs sued for wrongful termination. They claimed they were discriminated against due to their age and gender. The plaintiffs argued the employee handbook created a contract that overruled the at-will employment doctrine. Alternatively, they reasoned that the Court should create a new public policy exception for discrimination claims. Southern Farm removed the case to federal court, but it was returned to state court based on the plaintiffs’ assertions that they were traveling solely under state law. The federal court acknowledged that “Mississippi law does not recognize claims of age or gender (sex) discrimination.” In state court, Southern Farm filed a motion to dismiss. It argued the plaintiffs had no viable claim under either the handbook or state law. The trial court judge denied the motion, and Southern Farm appealed.
The Court’s Decision
Reversing and ruling in Southern Farm’s favor, the Mississippi Supreme Court noted that Southern Farm’s handbook began with an express disclaimer that the handbook did not create an employment contract. The plaintiffs asked the Court to ignore this disclaimer and see the handbook as a contract. The Court rejected their request and held that their wrongful discharge, breach of contract, breach of good faith and fair dealing, negligence and gross negligence claims failed as a matter of law.
The Court also rejected the plaintiffs’ request to create a new public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine. It held that Title VII and the ADEA already provide a cause of action for gender and age discrimination, so these have already been “independently declared legally impermissible.” The Court noted the plaintiffs’ failure to exhaust administrative remedies required by those statutes was the reason they abandoned any federal law claim. It declined to create any new exception in the face of legislative silence and in an effort for plaintiffs “seemingly to skirt the procedural requirements of their statutory cause of action.”
In so doing, the Court closed the door on common law discrimination claims. In Mississippi, until the Legislature decides otherwise, discrimination claims must be brought under federal law.
Please contact Mallory K. Bland or any other member of Phelps’ Labor and Employment team if you have questions or need compliance advice and guidance.
