Cited by

at 112 (recognizing tort for invasion of plaintiff’s solitude or seclusion); Karch v. BayBank FSB, 147 N.H. 525, 534-35 (2002) (recognizing tort for public disclosure of private facts); Remsburg v. Docusearch, 149 N.H. 148, 157 (2003) (recognizing tort for appropriation of plaintiff’s name or likeness).

Constructive discharge occurs when an employer renders an employee’s working conditions so difficult and intolerable that a reasonable person would feel forced to resign.

We have recognized only one exception - constructive discharge - to the termination component of a wrongful discharge claim.

We have recognized only one exception — constructive discharge — to the termination component of a wrongful discharge claim.

In other words, the defendant has not violated RSA 570- A:2, I, if he has “a ‘good faith’ belief that [his] conduct was lawful.” Fischer, 143 N.H. at 589 (alteration in original) (citation omitted); see also Karch v. Baybank FSB, 147 N.H. 525, 532 (2002).

In order to succeed on a wrongful discharge claim, a plaintiff must establish two elements: (1) that the discharge was “motivated by bad faith, retaliation or malice”; and (2) that the plaintiff was discharged “for performing an act that public policy would encourage or for refusing to do something that public policy would condemn.” Karch v. BayBank FSB, 147 N.H. 525, 536 (2002).

(workers’ compensation is employee’s exclusive remedy for negligent supervision claim against employer); see also Karch v. Baybank FSB, 147 N.H. 525, 529-80 (2002) (workers’ compensation is employee’s exclusive remedy against employer for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress).

We deal here with the public disclosure form of the tort, which “involves the invasion of something secret, secluded or private pertaining to the plaintiff.” Karch v. Baybank FSB, 147 N.H. 525, 535 (2002) (quotation omitted).

Karch v. BayBank FSB, 147 N.H. 525, 528 (2002); French, 123 N.H. at 480.

Such a leap is for the legislature to make.

To succeed on such a claim, a plaintiff must prove: “(1) [that] the termination of employment was motivated by bad faith, retaliation or malice; and (2) that she was terminated for performing an act that public policy would encourage or for refusing to do something that public policy would condemn.” Karch v. BayBank FSB, 147 N.H. 525, 586 (2002).

Karch v. Baybank FSB, 147 N.H. 525, 529 (2002) (citations, quotations and brackets omitted).

The standard of review when considering a motion to dismiss is “whether the allegations in the plaintiff’s pleadings are reasonably susceptible of a construction that would permit recovery.” Karch v. Baybank FSB, 147 N.H. 525, 529 (2002) (citation omitted).

We previously addressed this issue in Karch v. Baybank FSB, 147 N.H. 525 (2002).

Thus, the trial court’s reading of the statute improperly reformed the language to “conform[] to an intention not fairly expressed in it.” Karch v. Baybank FSB, 147 N.H. 525, 533 (2002) (quotation omitted).