Kelly Flannery v. Peco Foods, Inc.

Little Rock, Arkansas employment law lawyer represented the Plaintiff who sued on a wrongful termination theory.



A urine-screening test revealed that Flannery had THC, the active ingredient

of marijuana, in his system. He blamed a CBD oil he used for back pain. The

company fired him, even though he claimed that his THC level was below the

threshold listed in the employee manual. He raised a host of claims, but the district

court1 rejected each one at summary judgment. See Bharadwaj v. Mid Dakota

Clinic, 954 F.3d 1130, 1134 (8th Cir. 2020) (reviewing summary-judgment rulings

de novo).



Arkansas's employment-at-will doctrine takes care of Flannery's contract-

based claims. See Mertyris v. P.A.M. Transp., Inc., 832 S.W.2d 823, 825 (Ark.

1992). An employer like Peco can discharge its employees at any time, "for good

cause, no cause, or even a morally wrong cause.” Smith v. Am. Greetings Corp., 804

S.W.2d 683, 684 (Ark. 1991). It follows that Flannery cannot sue for damages or to

get his job back, whether the claim is for breaching the contract or the implied

covenant of good faith and fair dealing. See Mertyris, 832 S.W.2d at 825.

The narrow "exceptions” to the employment-at-will doctrine do not save

them. Id. The first is the public-policy exception, which allows a wrongful-

discharge claim when an employee "is fired in violation of a well-established public

policy of the state.” Id. (citation omitted). Flannery argued for the first time at

summary judgment that Peco retaliated against him for taking time off to recover

from his on-the-job back injury. See Jones v. Wellpath, LLC, 77 F.4th 658, 663 (8th

Cir. 2023) (observing that Arkansas law recognizes a wrongful-discharge claim if

there is "substantial evidence that the defendant fired the claimant because of [his]

legally protected conduct”). The district court did not abuse its discretion in

dismissing this unpleaded, unsupported, and untimely attempt to repackage his

claims. See WireCo WorldGroup, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 897 F.3d 987,

992 (8th Cir. 2018) (concluding there was no abuse of discretion in rejecting legal

theories raised for the first time in response to a summary-judgment motion).

Summary judgment granted.



Affirmed