General and Department of Highways); Haas Carriage. Inc. v. Berna, 651 N.E.2d 284 (Ind.App.1995) (determining that employee stated claim for retaliatory discharge where he alleged termination in retaliation for failure to commit an unlawful act); Pepsi-Cola Gen’l Bottlers. Inc. v. Woods, 440 N.E.2d 696, 697 (Ind.App.1982) (stating that retaliatory discharge claim applies when employee is discharged “solely for exercising a right conferred on him by a statute, constitution, or other positive law.”). Indiana’s retaliatory discharge claim, like Illinois’, also embraces claims that an employer interfered with a worker’s employment to prevent the worker’s rights to file for compensation benefits, as well as for threats of discharge. Stivers v. Stevens, 581 N.E.2d 1253, 1254 (Ind.App.1991) (<HOLDING>); see also Frampton, 297 N.E.2d at 428 (stating
recognizing retaliatory discharge tort implied by the workers compensation act recognizing the tort of retaliatory discharge recognizing retaliatory discharge claim where employer prevented employees exercise of workers compensation rights because of employees intention to file claim holding that because maryland law expressly creates right to file workers compensation claim action exists for wrongful discharge for termination based solely on the filing of a workers compensation claim holding that employees retaliatory discharge based on employees election to public office did not violate public policy