As we have noted previously, Indiana follows the employment-at-will doctrine, which permits both the employer and employee to terminate the employment at any time for good reason, bad reason, or no reason at all. On rare occasions, narrow exceptions have been found. Over time, theories of retaliation have come to be included within these exceptions.

To succeed on a claim for retaliatory discharge, an employee must demonstrate that his or her discharge was solely in retaliation for the exercise of a statutory right. The employee must link the filing of a claim, or assertion of a right, and the termination. This link can be based on proximity in time or on evidence that the employer's asserted lawful reason for the discharge is a pretext.

This theory of retaliation was present in a recent case. An black employee was given a three-day suspension for violating a work rule. She responded by filing a claim of race discrimination with a local human rights commission.

Four months later, the employee's daughter was sick. She called her doctor and was told to come in during the employee's work shift. The doctor faxed a statement to the employer, indicating that the daughter was sick and that the appointment was scheduled.

The employee left work early, but never took her daughter to the doctor, in part because she was late for the appointment and in part because the daughter said she was feeling better.

When the employer discovered these facts, it fired the employee, claiming that she had falsified a business record. The employee responded by filing a lawsuit, claiming that the firing was solely in retaliation for her having filed the earlier discrimination claim.

The employee prevailed. The court noted, as significant, the short time period between the filing of the discrimination charge and the termination. Even more importantly, the stated reason for the termination -- falsification of a record -- was a pretext. The only record was the doctor's note. The employee didn't prepare it, and in any case, it wasn't false. When the note was written, the daughter was sick and the appointment was set.

Clearly, the employee erred in not reporting to the employer that the doctor's appointment was not kept. However, she wasn't accused of this omission. The evidence was sufficient that the real reason behind the termination was the employee's filing of the original discrimination claim.

Opinions expressed solely are those of the writer. James Jorgensen practices law at Hoeppner Wagner & Evans in Valparaiso.