r promised she would not be fired even if her husband accepted work with a competitor company. The Supreme Court rejected the employer's argument that the decision to terminate its employee had nothing to do with the decision by her husband to accept work with a competitor company, noting instead that the employment-at-will doctrine was not applicable since the employee had been given assurances that she would not be terminated (Peikes 109-110). If this case teaches employers anything, it should be that the doctrine of employment-at-will does not provide a safe harbor or safe haven for companies that are sued by former employees claiming that the statements or actions of the company with respect to their status as at will employees had changed.
According to Dana Shilling in her book Human Resources and the Law" a blue-collar employee has the
...