P was employed D as its quality control director and subsequently also as operations manager. In the course of his employment, P received periodic raises and bonuses. P noticed deviations from the specifications contained D's standards and labels, in that some vegetables were substandard and some meat components underweight. D's products violated the express representations contained in D's labeling. This violated the Connecticut Uniform Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. In May of 1977, P communicated in writing to D regarding the violations and the need to take corrective measures. The suggestions were ignored. On November 3, 1977, D terminated P's employment. D claimed that P was discharged for unsatisfactory performance of his duties. P sued D for wrongful discharged. P claims that there was a violation of an implied contract of employment, a violation of public policy, and a malicious discharge. D moved to strike, and the trial court ruled in D’s favor. P appealed. P concedes the issues related to at will employment in that his employment was terminable at will, and that D could fire P without cause. However, P relies heavily on his claim that D fired him in violation of public policy and this entitles him to damages in tort for wrongful termination.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.