지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Courts in most states recognize a private right of action for dismissals that jeopardize specific public policy interests of the state. This category of tort liability is called the public policy tort.
The public policy tort, is a specific application of the prima facie tort. The public policy tort permits recovery by a dismissed employee only when the dismissal violates a clear public policy of the state.
The prima facie tort allows recovery if the employer dismissed the employee with malice and without justification. Malice is a legal term of art that means little more than the mental state that motivates harmful conduct in the absence of justification.
Intentional tort principles applicable to these categories permit a plaintiff to recover only by showing that a legally protected right of the plaintiff was harmed by an act of the defendant and that the defendant lacked justification for his act. The public policy tort theory expands the range of circumstances in which an employee may recover without having to establish the employer's conduct or state of mind sufficiently to satisfy traditional tort categories such as intentional interference with contractual relations, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraudulent misrepresentation, defamation, or invasion of privacy. None of these traditional theories permitted the employee to recover for the dismissal itself. The newer public plicy tort theory permits a dismissed employee to recover for the dismissal itself.
Public policy tort cases require courts to balance the interests of the employee, employer, and society under formula presented in § 870 of the Restatement(Second) of Torts.
The public policy tort, is a specific application of the prima facie tort. The public policy tort permits recovery by a dismissed employee only when the dismissal violates a clear public policy of the state.
The prima facie tort allows recovery if the employer dismissed the employee with malice and without justification. Malice is a legal term of art that means little more than the mental state that motivates harmful conduct in the absence of justification.
Intentional tort principles applicable to these categories permit a plaintiff to recover only by showing that a legally protected right of the plaintiff was harmed by an act of the defendant and that the defendant lacked justification for his act. The public policy tort theory expands the range of circumstances in which an employee may recover without having to establish the employer's conduct or state of mind sufficiently to satisfy traditional tort categories such as intentional interference with contractual relations, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraudulent misrepresentation, defamation, or invasion of privacy. None of these traditional theories permitted the employee to recover for the dismissal itself. The newer public plicy tort theory permits a dismissed employee to recover for the dismissal itself.
Public policy tort cases require courts to balance the interests of the employee, employer, and society under formula presented in § 870 of the Restatement(Second) of Torts.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 불법행위 요건
Ⅲ. 부당해고에 대한 구제
Ⅳ. 결어
참고문헌
Abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
中国民法典中关于侵权责任的规定和变化
원광법학
2020 .01
-
개인의 감정적 평온에 관한 불법행위 : 불법행위의 유형과 성립요건을 중심으로
한양법학
2008 .10
-
부당해고의 사법적 구제와 관련한 새로운 입론
노동법연구
2011 .03
-
EU 통합 불법행위법 동향
외법논집
2006 .01
-
未成年者의 不法行爲에 대한 監督者의 賠償責任
중앙법학
2015 .03
-
현대 불법행위법의 동향과 민법상 불법행위법의 문제점
법학연구
2010 .06
-
我國的媒体侵權責任与体媒權利保護 : 兼为媒体侵权责任法理论和实践辩解
비교사법
2012 .11
-
不法行爲로 인한 損害賠償範圍의 解釋論과 立法論
기업법연구
2005 .03
-
疫学因果关系理论在公害犯罪认定中的运用
중국법연구
2017 .01
-
중국 침권책임법의 일반조항
법학논총
2011 .02
-
중국 불법행위법의 최근동향에 관한 연구 : 불법행위책임법(2009년)의 구성과 주요내용을 중심으로
비교사법
2010 .06
-
EU 불법행위법 통일 논의와 동아시아에서의 통일 모색
재산법연구
2010 .01
-
DCFR의 비계약적 책임 (불법행위법)
외법논집
2009 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-366-014100038