if taken as true, would rebut the presumption of at-will employment.... Accordingly, there was no basis for either a breach of contract or a tortious interference with contract claim.... ”). Moreover, two of the three cases involved suits against third parties to the plaintiffs’ employment arrangements. See Futrell, 816 A.2d at 798, 807-08; McManus, 748 A.2d at 957-58. Conversely, two of the cases that Metz cites as supporting his contention that this principle has an exception when the case is brought against a third party do so only by implication. Although each allowed such a claim for tortious interference with an agreement that was terminable at will, neither addressed the question of whether the at-will nature of the agreement precluded the claim. See Sorrells, 565 A.2d at 290-91 (<HOLDING>); CASCO, 834 A.2d at 83-84 (reciting the result
holding only that although a party cannot interfere with its own contract a supervisor who is not an officer of a plaintiffs employer is not a party to the plaintiffs employment contract and therefore can interfere with it holding that misrepresentation and breach of contract claims in state court did not interfere with the nlrbs determination of related matters holding that person who is not party to contract does not have standing to challenge contract holding that insurer could not tortiously interfere with its own insurance plan recognizing that a court is without jurisdiction to issue an injunction which would interfere with the rights of those who are not parties to the action