RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
다국어 입력

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

예시)
  • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
  • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
닫기
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      KCI등재후보

      해고제한의 법리로서 불법행위이론 -미국의 공공정책 불법행위 이론을 중심으로- = Torts theory as a restricting doctrine of dismissal - mainly on the public policy torts theories U.S.A -

      한글로보기

      https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A104838777

      • 0

        상세조회
      • 0

        다운로드
      서지정보 열기
      • 내보내기
      • 내책장담기
      • 공유하기
      • 오류접수

      부가정보

      다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

      Courts in most states recognize a private right of action for dismissals that jeopardize specific public policy interests of the state. This category of tort liability is called the public policy tort.
      The public policy tort, is a specific application of the prima facie tort. The public policy tort permits recovery by a dismissed employee only when the dismissal violates a clear public policy of the state.
      The prima facie tort allows recovery if the employer dismissed the employee with malice and without justification. Malice is a legal term of art that means little more than the mental state that motivates harmful conduct in the absence of justification.
      Intentional tort principles applicable to these categories permit a plaintiff to recover only by showing that a legally protected right of the plaintiff was harmed by an act of the defendant and that the defendant lacked justification for his act. The public policy tort theory expands the range of circumstances in which an employee may recover without having to establish the employer's conduct or state of mind sufficiently to satisfy traditional tort categories such as intentional interference with contractual relations, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraudulent misrepresentation, defamation, or invasion of privacy. None of these traditional theories permitted the employee to recover for the dismissal itself. The newer public plicy tort theory permits a dismissed employee to recover for the dismissal itself.
      Public policy tort cases require courts to balance the interests of the employee, employer, and society under formula presented in § 870 of the Restatement(Second) of Torts.
      번역하기

      Courts in most states recognize a private right of action for dismissals that jeopardize specific public policy interests of the state. This category of tort liability is called the public policy tort. The public policy tort, is a specific applicati...

      Courts in most states recognize a private right of action for dismissals that jeopardize specific public policy interests of the state. This category of tort liability is called the public policy tort.
      The public policy tort, is a specific application of the prima facie tort. The public policy tort permits recovery by a dismissed employee only when the dismissal violates a clear public policy of the state.
      The prima facie tort allows recovery if the employer dismissed the employee with malice and without justification. Malice is a legal term of art that means little more than the mental state that motivates harmful conduct in the absence of justification.
      Intentional tort principles applicable to these categories permit a plaintiff to recover only by showing that a legally protected right of the plaintiff was harmed by an act of the defendant and that the defendant lacked justification for his act. The public policy tort theory expands the range of circumstances in which an employee may recover without having to establish the employer's conduct or state of mind sufficiently to satisfy traditional tort categories such as intentional interference with contractual relations, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraudulent misrepresentation, defamation, or invasion of privacy. None of these traditional theories permitted the employee to recover for the dismissal itself. The newer public plicy tort theory permits a dismissed employee to recover for the dismissal itself.
      Public policy tort cases require courts to balance the interests of the employee, employer, and society under formula presented in § 870 of the Restatement(Second) of Torts.

      더보기

      참고문헌 (Reference)

      1 "Williston on Contracts" 1956

      2 "Tortious Interference with Contractual Relation; The Transformation of property" 1514-21, 1980

      3 "The Pmol Evidence Rule a Proudunal Derice qor Control of the Jung" 41 Yale Law Jounal 1931

      4 "Law and Market in U" 1982

      5 "Federal Law of Employment Discrimination" 1999

      6 "Employment Law second edition," West Group 1999

      7 "Employment Law and Employment Discrimination" Aspen Law and Business 1-, 1998

      8 "Employee Dismissal Law and Practice" Aspen Law & Business 2001

      9 "A Treatise on The Law of Master and Servant" 1877

      1 "Williston on Contracts" 1956

      2 "Tortious Interference with Contractual Relation; The Transformation of property" 1514-21, 1980

      3 "The Pmol Evidence Rule a Proudunal Derice qor Control of the Jung" 41 Yale Law Jounal 1931

      4 "Law and Market in U" 1982

      5 "Federal Law of Employment Discrimination" 1999

      6 "Employment Law second edition," West Group 1999

      7 "Employment Law and Employment Discrimination" Aspen Law and Business 1-, 1998

      8 "Employee Dismissal Law and Practice" Aspen Law & Business 2001

      9 "A Treatise on The Law of Master and Servant" 1877

      더보기

      동일학술지(권/호) 다른 논문

      동일학술지 더보기

      더보기

      분석정보

      View

      상세정보조회

      0

      Usage

      원문다운로드

      0

      대출신청

      0

      복사신청

      0

      EDDS신청

      0

      동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

      더보기

      주제

      연도별 연구동향

      연도별 활용동향

      연관논문

      연구자 네트워크맵

      공동연구자 (7)

      유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

      인용정보 인용지수 설명보기

      학술지 이력

      학술지 이력
      연월일 이력구분 이력상세 등재구분
      2026 평가예정 재인증평가 신청대상 (재인증)
      2020-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (재인증) KCI등재
      2017-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (계속평가) KCI등재
      2013-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
      2010-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
      2008-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
      2005-01-01 평가 등재학술지 선정 (등재후보2차) KCI등재
      2004-01-01 평가 등재후보 1차 PASS (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
      2003-01-01 평가 등재후보학술지 선정 (신규평가) KCI등재후보
      더보기

      학술지 인용정보

      학술지 인용정보
      기준연도 WOS-KCI 통합IF(2년) KCIF(2년) KCIF(3년)
      2016 0.87 0.87 0.87
      KCIF(4년) KCIF(5년) 중심성지수(3년) 즉시성지수
      0.92 0.89 0.843 0.5
      더보기

      이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

      나만을 위한 추천자료

      해외이동버튼