Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

623 A.2d 464

Pacheo v. Raytheon Co.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Decided April 23, 1993

Supreme Court of Rhode Island · decided 1993-04-23

Relies on Volino v. General Dynamics

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1993-04-23

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently June 2017

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 10 state decisions

60199320002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 OPINION

PER CURIAM.

¶2 This matter came before this court on April 2, 1993, pursuant to an order directing both parties to appear and show cause why this appeal should not be summarily decided.

¶3 The plaintiff, David A. Pacheco, filed a complaint in Superior Court, alleging that he was wrongfully discharged by defendant, Raytheon Company. In response to plaintiffs complaint, defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that plaintiffs employment was subject to termination at will. The trial justice treated the motion as one for summary judgment. She granted the motion, and plaintiff now appeals.

¶4 The Superior Court declined to recognize the tort of whistle blowing, noting the long line of cases regarding the employment-at-will doctrine. See Volino v. General Dynamics, 539 A.2d 531, 532 (R.I.1988). In our review we recognize that the General Assembly has passed legislation in this area that is inapplicable to the plaintiffs appeal. It is not the role of the courts to create rights for persons whom the Legislature has not chosen to protect. To the extent that our decision in Volino may have been misleading, we now unequivocally state that in Rhode Island there is no cause of action for wrongful discharge.

¶5 After hearing the arguments and considering the memoranda of the parties, we are of the opinion that cause has not been shown. The appeal is denied and dismissed, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, and the papers of the case are remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

/623/a2d/464 · .json · Public domain