context: Finally, Matthys also asserts a claim for retaliatory discharge on account of her filing of an workers' compensation claim. In general, Indiana adheres to the employment-at-will doctrine, whereby an employment contract is terminable at the will of either party.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 412 F.3d 785, 785
citation_a.parenthetical: noting that such claims are called "Frampton" claims in Indiana courts
citation_a.sentence: See also Hudson, 412 F.3d at 785 (noting that such claims are called “Frampton” claims in Indiana courts); Crye, 2008 WL 5111349 at *7.
citation_b.signal: no signal
citation_b.identifier: 2008 WL 5111349, at *7
citation_b.parenthetical: "employers can generally terminate an employment at any time, for a good reason, bad reason, or no reason at all"
citation_b.sentence: Hudson v. Wal-Mart Stores, 412 F.3d 781, 785 (7th Cir.2005); Crye v. Caterpillar, Inc., 2008 WL 5111349 at *7 (N.D.Ind.2008) (“employers can generally terminate an employment at any time, for a good reason, bad reason, or no reason at all”); Settele v. Walgreens Co., 2007 WL 1970954 at *3 (N.D.Ind.2007). However, the Indiana Supreme Court has carved out an exception to this rule, acknowledging a cause of action for employees discharged in retaliation for filing a workers’ compensation claim.