In Bammert v. Don's Super Valu, Inc., 646 N.W.2d 365 (Wis. 2002), the Wisconsin Supreme Court was faced with "a single question of first-impression: can the public policy exception to the employment-at-will doctrine be invoked when an at-will employee is fired in retaliation for the actions of his or her non-employee spouse?"

The state supreme court held that the public policy exception to the employment-at-will doctrine could not be invoked when an at-will employee was fired in retaliation for the actions of his or her non-employee spouse.

And since the action is predicated on "the breach of an implied provision that an employer will not discharge an employee for refusing to perform an act that violates a clear mandate of public policy," in sounds in contract not tort.

According to the court, Bammert adduced two public policies through two statutes: However, noting that "Discharges for conduct outside of the employment relationship by someone other than the discharged employee are not actionable under present law," the Court did not find these grounds sufficient to "enlarge" the public-policy exception, to apply in an instance where Bammert "was not fired for her participation" but "for her husband's participation in the enforcement of" the drunk driving laws.

That the "someone else" is her husband makes her discharge obviously retaliatory, and reminds us of the sometimes harsh reality of employment-at-will, but it does not provide acceptable grounds for expansion of the public policy exception beyond its present boundaries."

It would arguably apply to retaliatory discharges based upon the conduct of any non-employee relative, for the fulfillment of or refusal to violate public policy in a wide variety of ways and in a manner completely unconnected to the employment relationship.

Extending the at-will employment policy to police officers aligns with precedent and with the public interest for vigorous enforcement of the law free from undue influence.