Farrow's Wrongful Discharge Case Study

raise the issue in her charge. The court disagreed, holding that Farrow limited her charge to events that occurred prior to her discharge in December 2008. In regards to Farrow’s wrongful discharge claim against Dr. Strange, the court found that Dr. Strange was Farrow’s supervisor, not an employer. Therefore, this claim must fail because there is no claim for wrongful discharge against a non-employer. In her wrongful discharge claim against St. Francis, Farrow alleged St. Francis discharged her because of her outspoken disapproval of and failure to comply with changes to certain procedures instituted by St. Francis which required non-nurses to perform certain tasks. Farrow claimed St. Francis’s use of non-nurses to perform such procedures violated Missouri statutes and regulations. The court held that Farrow’s allegations were not so vague, general, or amorphous to warrant summary judgment.
St. Francis also argued Farrow was required to report the

Vinson described a time that she went out to dinner with him and during the course of the meal he suggested that they go to a motel and have sexual relations. At first she refused, but out of what she described as fear of losing her job she eventually agreed. Afterwards, Taylor made repeated demands upon her for sexual favors, usually at the branch both during and after business hours. She estimated that over the next several years she had intercourse with him about 40 to 50 times. She also claimed that Taylor fondled her in front of other employees, followed her into the women’s restroom when she went in there alone, exposed himself to her, and even forcibly raped her on several occasions. Vinson also claimed that because she was afraid of Taylor she never reported his harassment to any of his supervisors and never attempted to use the bank’s complaint