retaliate for) the exercise of benefit rights; and the disruption of employment privileges to prevent or punish the giving of testimony in any proceeding relating to ERISA or a sister act. Teumer, 34 F.3d at 547. The Seventh Circuit stated that the Illinois tort of retaliatory discharge “originated as a protection for employees seeking to enjoy their workers’ compensation entitlements” and is interpreted “broadly to encompass discharges that either retaliate against or interfere with the exercise of favored rights.” Teumer, 34 F.3d at 548 & 549. Like Illinois, Indiana’s tort of retaliatory discharge originated as a protection for employees seeking to exercise their workers’ compensation rights. See, e.g., Frampton v. Central Indiana Gas Co., 260 Ind. 249, 297 N.E.2d 425, 428 (1973) (<HOLDING>). Indiana, again like Illinois, has since
recognizing exception to atwill employment doctrine because if employers are permitted to penalize employees for filing workmens compensation claims a most important public policy will be undermined the fear of being discharged would have a deleterious effect on the exercise of a statutory right recognizing public policy exception to atwill doctrine recognizing narrow whistleblower exception to the atwill doctrine holding that an employee could maintain a claim for constructive discharge in violation of virginias public policy exception to the employment atwill doctrine recognizing exception to atwill employment doctrine where employee is terminated by employer for refusing to violate municipal regulation