Well now, that is correct.
Some states have laws that prohibit employers from discriminating in their employment practices against individuals because they are smokers or nonsmokers, but Georgia does not have such a law.
The Georgia courts have refused to create public policy exceptions in three broad categories: discharge for refusal to commit or condone an illegal act, discharge for disclosing the employer's illegal activities (``whistleblowing''), and discharge for exercise of a lawful right. The Georgia Court of Appeals explained their resistance to creating public policy exceptions in Goodroe v. Georgia Power Co. The court stated, ``There is no room for [a public policy] exception in Georgia as [the at-will] rule is statutory and the statute, [O.C.G.A. § 34-7-1 (GCA § 66-101)], does not encompass [public policy] exception.''
In Borden v. Johnson, a case involving an allegation that an employee was terminated because of her pregnancy, the court discussed the public policy issue as follows:
The courts of this state have consistently held that they will not usurp the legislative function and under the rubric that they are the propounders of "public policy'', undertaken to create exceptions to the legal proposition that there can be no recovery in tort for the alleged ``wrongful'' termination of the employment of an at-will employee. That the courts of other jurisdictions may have done so is of no consequence because
``in Georgia . . . , this rule is statutory . . . .'' Accordingly, ``Georgia courts have refused to acknowledge any exceptions not encompassed by O.C.G.A. § 34-7-1 [GCA § 66-101], and, in the absence of any expressed statutory provision for such a civil remedy . . . , we decline . . . to create judicially such a remedy''.
The court went on to state that there clearly does exist certain viable ``public policy'' exceptions in Georgia to the proposition that the employment of an at-will employee can be terminated for any reason whatsoever or for no reason at all. However, the court noted that each of these ``public policy'' exceptions was created by the legislature, not by the courts, and went on to enumerate those exceptions as follows:
See O.C.G.A § 18-4-7 [GCA § 46-303] (which prohibits the discharge of any employee because his earnings had been subjected to garnishment for any one indebtedness); O.C.G.A. § 34-1-2 [GCA § 54-1102] (which criminalizes the discharge of employees on the basis of age); O.C.G.A. § 34-1-3 [GCA § 54-1103] (which authorizes an employee who is discharged for attending a judicial proceeding in response to a court order or process to recover damages and attorneys' fees); O.C.G.A. § 34-6A-1 et seq. [GCA § 66-501 et seq.] (which authorizes an employee who was allegedly discharged as the result of a handicap to initiate a civil action).
Even though an at-will employee has no viable state remedy in the form of a tort action for ``wrongful'' discharge, unless the General Assembly has created a specific exception to O.C.G.A. § 37-7-1 (GCA § 88-401), plaintiff's counsel should consult all applicable federal statutes to review whether there is a federal statutory remedy.
Thus, there are federal statutory prohibitions for discharge based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin or for filing charges or giving testimony under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibiting discharge based on age of persons 40 and over or for exercising statutory rights, prohibiting discharge for union activity, protected concerted activity, protected strikes or for filing charges or giving testimony, prohibiting federal contractors and financial assistance recipients from discriminating against qualified handicapped persons, prohibiting discharge except for cause for one year upon return from military service, prohibiting discharge of employees for exercising rights under benefit plans or for filing a complaint.
Also for giving testimony, prohibiting discharge for filing a complaint or giving testimony under the federal wage-hour laws, prohibiting discharge for filing a complaint or giving testimony under the federal health and safety laws, prohibiting discharge for garnishment of wages for any one indebtedness, prohibiting discharge of federal employees except for cause, prohibiting discharge for service on grand or petit jury, prohibiting discrimination against qualified persons with disabilities, and prohibiting discrimination against an individual who is or has been a debtor or bankrupt under bankruptcy laws or associated with such.
So, now that you've waded through all of that, the point to all of this is, yes, you MAY have a cause of action on the federal level, but then you have to ask yourself if you have about 5 years and $100,000 or more to pursue such a cause of action without any guarantee of success.
