Pick your state
- Alabama
- Alaska
- Arizona
- Arkansas
- California
- Colorado
- Connecticut
- Delaware
- District of Columbia
- Florida
- Georgia
- Hawaii
- Idaho
- Illinois
- Indiana
- Iowa
- Kansas
- Kentucky
- Louisiana
- Maine
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Michigan
- Minnesota
- Mississippi
- Missouri
- Montana
- Nebraska
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- North Carolina
- North Dakota
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Oregon
- Pennsylvania
- Rhode Island
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- Tennessee
- Texas
- Utah
- Vermont
- Virginia
- Washington
- West Virginia
- Wisconsin
- Wyoming
At-will employment exceptions rules at a glance
A short summary for each state. Open a state for the details, exceptions and sources.
| State | Public policy exception | Implied contract exception |
|---|---|---|
| Alabama | Courts in Alabama decide this case by case. Not confirmed from a current official source, so check with an employment lawyer. Source: U.S. BLS survey, January 2001↗ (opens in a new tab) | Recognized. A handbook can create a binding promise unless it clearly disclaims one, per a federal court applying Alabama law (Hoffman-La Roche v. Campbell, Alabama Supreme Court, 1987). Source: Federal court applying Alabama law↗ (opens in a new tab) |
| Alaska | Courts in Alaska decide this case by case. Not confirmed from a current official source, so check with an employment lawyer. Source: U.S. BLS survey, January 2001↗ (opens in a new tab) | Courts in Alaska decide this case by case. Not confirmed from a current official source, so check with an employment lawyer. Source: U.S. BLS survey, January 2001↗ (opens in a new tab) |
| Arizona | Limited. A firing can be wrongful only if it breaks an Arizona statute or punishes listed acts, like refusing to break the law (A.R.S. § 23-1501). Source: azleg.gov↗ (opens in a new tab) | Limited. Handbook promises bind only if the handbook clearly says it is a contract, or a written contract is signed (A.R.S. § 23-1501). Source: azleg.gov↗ (opens in a new tab) |
| Arkansas | Recognized, but narrow. Firing someone in violation of a well-established public policy of the state can be sued (Sterling Drug v. Oxford, 1988, as applied in Mertyris v. P.A.M. Transport, 1992). Source: opinions.arcourts.gov↗ (opens in a new tab) | Limited. A handbook binds you only if it expressly says firing is only for cause; a list of offenses is not enough (Mertyris v. P.A.M. Transport, Arkansas Supreme Court, 1992). Source: opinions.arcourts.gov↗ (opens in a new tab) |
| California | Recognized. Firing someone for refusing to commit a crime or for another reason against public policy can be sued (Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield, California Supreme Court, 1980). Source: Calif. Judicial Council, CACI 2025↗ (opens in a new tab) | Recognized. Company policies, long service or other conduct can create an implied promise to fire only for good cause (Guz v. Bechtel National, California Supreme Court, 2000). Source: Calif. Judicial Council, CACI 2400↗ (opens in a new tab) |
| Colorado | Recognized. Firing someone for refusing an illegal order or exercising a key legal right or duty can be sued (Martin Marietta v. Lorenz, Colorado Supreme Court, 1992). Source: coloradojudicial.gov↗ (opens in a new tab) | Recognized. Handbook firing rules can be a binding promise, but a clear, conspicuous disclaimer can defeat it (Continental Air Lines v. Keenan, Colorado Supreme Court, 1987). Source: Colorado jury instructions, ch. 31↗ (opens in a new tab) |
| Connecticut | Recognized. A firing that goes against a clear mandate of public policy can be sued (Sheets v. Teddy's Frosted Foods, Connecticut Supreme Court, 1980). Source: Conn. Legislative Research, 2001↗ (opens in a new tab) | Recognized. A claim exists if the employer agreed, by words or conduct, not to fire without just cause (D'Ulisse-Cupo v. Notre Dame High School, Connecticut Supreme Court, 1987). Source: Conn. Legislative Research, 2001↗ (opens in a new tab) |
| Delaware | Recognized, but narrow. A firing that violates public policy can be sued under the good faith rule (Lord v. Souder, Delaware Supreme Court, 2000). Source: Del. Superior Court order, 2015↗ (opens in a new tab) | Courts in Delaware decide this case by case. Not confirmed from a current official source, so check with an employment lawyer. Source: U.S. BLS survey, January 2001↗ (opens in a new tab) |
| District of Columbia | Recognized, but narrow. Firing someone solely for refusing to break a law or regulation is wrongful (Adams v. George W. Cochran & Co., D.C. Court of Appeals, 1991). Source: D.C. Court of Appeals, 2015↗ (opens in a new tab) | Recognized. A handbook limiting firing to stated causes can be a contract, despite a disclaimer, if meant to bind (Strass v. Kaiser, D.C. Court of Appeals, 2000). Source: D.C. Court of Appeals, 2002↗ (opens in a new tab) |
| Florida | Limited. Employers with 10+ workers cannot fire someone for objecting to, refusing to join, or reporting in writing under oath a breach of law (Fla. Stat. § 448.102). Source: flsenate.gov↗ (opens in a new tab) Source: flsenate.gov↗ (opens in a new tab) | Courts in Florida decide this case by case. Not confirmed from a current official source, so check with an employment lawyer. Source: U.S. BLS survey, January 2001↗ (opens in a new tab) |
| Georgia | Not recognized as a general rule. Georgia courts leave exceptions to the legislature (Reilly v. Alcan Aluminum, Georgia Supreme Court, 2000). (as reported by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit) Source: 11th Cir. quoting Ga. Sup. Ct.↗ (opens in a new tab) | Courts in Georgia decide this case by case. Not confirmed from a current official source, so check with an employment lawyer. Source: U.S. BLS survey, January 2001↗ (opens in a new tab) |
| Hawaii | Courts in Hawaii decide this case by case. Not confirmed from a current official source, so check with an employment lawyer. Source: U.S. BLS survey, January 2001↗ (opens in a new tab) | Courts in Hawaii decide this case by case. Not confirmed from a current official source, so check with an employment lawyer. Source: U.S. BLS survey, January 2001↗ (opens in a new tab) |
| Idaho | Recognized, but narrow. Firing someone for a protected activity is wrongful (Bollinger v. Fall River, Idaho Supreme Court, 2012, quoted by a federal court applying Idaho law). Source: Federal court applying Idaho law↗ (opens in a new tab) | Recognized. Employer statements and policies, including handbooks, can limit at-will firing (Bollinger v. Fall River, Idaho Supreme Court, 2012, quoted by a federal court applying Idaho law). Source: Federal court applying Idaho law↗ (opens in a new tab) |
| Illinois | Recognized, but narrow. Firing someone in retaliation for activity protected by a clear mandate of public policy is wrongful (Turner v. Memorial Medical Center, Illinois Supreme Court, 2009). Source: illinoiscourts.gov↗ (opens in a new tab) | Recognized. A handbook with a clear promise, given to staff who keep working after reading it, can be a binding contract (Doyle v. Holy Cross Hospital, Illinois Supreme Court, 1999). Source: illinoiscourts.gov↗ (opens in a new tab) |
| Indiana | Recognized, but narrow. Firing someone solely for using a legal right, like filing a workers' comp claim, is wrongful (South Bend Community School Corp. v. Grabowski, Indiana Supreme Court, 2025). Source: public.courts.in.gov↗ (opens in a new tab) | Limited. Only a contract requiring good cause, or a broken promise the worker relied on, limits firing (South Bend Community School Corp. v. Grabowski, Indiana Supreme Court, 2025). Source: public.courts.in.gov↗ (opens in a new tab) |
| Iowa | Recognized, but narrow. Firing someone for activity protected by a clearly defined, well-recognized public policy is wrongful (Carver-Kimm v. Reynolds, Iowa Supreme Court, 2023). Source: iowacourts.gov↗ (opens in a new tab) | Recognized. A handbook can be a contract if it promises firing only for cause or under set conditions (Fogel v. Trustees of Iowa College, Iowa Supreme Court, 1989). Source: publications.iowa.gov↗ (opens in a new tab) |
| Kansas | Recognized, but narrow. Firing someone for a workers' comp claim or whistleblowing is wrongful (Palmer v. Brown, Kansas Supreme Court, 1988, cited by a federal court applying Kansas law). Source: Federal court applying Kansas law↗ (opens in a new tab) | Recognized. An implied contract can arise from negotiations, conduct and the job's nature (Morriss v. Coleman, Kansas Supreme Court, 1987, quoted by a federal court applying Kansas law). Source: Federal court applying Kansas law↗ (opens in a new tab) |
| Kentucky | Recognized, but narrow. Firing someone for refusing to break the law, or for using a right given by statute, is wrongful (Grzyb v. Evans, Kentucky Supreme Court, 1985). Source: apps.kycourts.net↗ (opens in a new tab) | Recognized, but narrow. Promises to fire only for cause need clear wording (Shah v. American Synthetic Rubber, Kentucky Supreme Court, 1983, cited by a federal court applying Kentucky law). Source: Federal court applying Kentucky law↗ (opens in a new tab) |
| Louisiana | Not recognized. Beyond specific statutes, Louisiana allows no broad public-policy exceptions (Quebedeaux v. Dow Chemical, Louisiana Supreme Court, 2002, quoted by a federal court applying Louisiana law). Source: Federal court applying Louisiana law↗ (opens in a new tab) Source: govinfo.gov↗ (opens in a new tab) | Limited. Handbooks create rights only if bargained for, not just company policy (Leger v. Tyson Foods, Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1996, quoted by a federal court applying Louisiana law). Source: Federal court applying Louisiana law↗ (opens in a new tab) |
| Maine | Limited. Maine courts decline a separate wrongful-discharge claim where the Whistleblowers' Protection Act already gives a remedy (Bard v. Bath Iron Works, 1991, as discussed by the Maine Supreme Judicial Court in 2021). Source: courts.maine.gov↗ (opens in a new tab) | Courts in Maine decide this case by case. Not confirmed from a current official source, so check with an employment lawyer. Source: U.S. BLS survey, January 2001↗ (opens in a new tab) |
| Maryland | Recognized, but narrow. Firing someone for a reason that violates a clear mandate of public policy is abusive discharge (Parks v. Alpharma, Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2011). Source: mdcourts.gov↗ (opens in a new tab) | Recognized, but narrow. Written policies bind the employer to follow them, but grievance procedures alone do not end at-will status (Suburban Hospital v. Dwiggins, 1991, quoted 2018). Source: Md. Court of Special Appeals, 2018↗ (opens in a new tab) |
| Massachusetts | Recognized, but narrow. Firing someone for doing something a statute expressly allows (here a personnel-file rebuttal) was wrongful (Meehan v. Medical Information Technology, 2021). Source: mass.gov↗ (opens in a new tab) | Courts in Massachusetts decide this case by case. Not confirmed from a current official source, so check with an employment lawyer. Source: U.S. BLS survey, January 2001↗ (opens in a new tab) |
| Michigan | Recognized. Firing someone for refusing to break the law or for using a clear statutory right is wrongful (Suchodolski, Michigan Supreme Court, 1982, as applied in Stegall, 2022). Source: Michigan Supreme Court order, 2022↗ (opens in a new tab) | Recognized. Company policies that create legitimate expectations of job security can overcome at-will status (Cesarini v FCA US, Michigan Court of Appeals, unpublished, 2019, applying Toussaint). Source: courts.michigan.gov↗ (opens in a new tab) |
| Minnesota | Recognized, but narrow. Firing someone for refusing to do something they believe is illegal is wrongful (Dukowitz v. Hannon Security Services, Minnesota Supreme Court, 2014). Source: mn.gov↗ (opens in a new tab) | Recognized. Definite handbook terms can become part of an employment contract once the worker keeps working (Hall v. City of Plainview, Minnesota Supreme Court, 2021). Source: mn.gov↗ (opens in a new tab) |
| Mississippi | Recognized, but narrow. Firing someone for refusing to commit, or for reporting, the employer's illegal acts can be sued on (McArn v. Allied Bruce-Terminix, Mississippi Supreme Court, 1993). Source: Federal court applying Mississippi law↗ (opens in a new tab) Source: ca5.uscourts.gov↗ (opens in a new tab) | Limited. A handbook can bind the employer to its discipline rules unless it disclaims them (Bobbitt v. The Orchard, Mississippi Supreme Court, 1992; unpublished federal ruling). Source: Federal court, unpublished↗ (opens in a new tab) Source: ca5.uscourts.gov↗ (opens in a new tab) |
| Missouri | Recognized, but narrow. The 2017 Whistleblower's Protection Act protects workers who report an employer's illegal acts or refuse to break the law (Mo. Rev. Stat. § 285.575). Source: revisor.mo.gov↗ (opens in a new tab) | Not recognized. Employee handbooks are generally not contracts; publishing one is not an offer (Johnson v. McDonnell Douglas, Missouri Supreme Court, 1988, as applied by a federal court, 1997). Source: Federal court applying Missouri law↗ (opens in a new tab) |
| Montana | Recognized by statute. Firing someone for refusing to break public policy, or for reporting a violation of it, is wrongful discharge (Mont. Code § 39-2-904, 1987). Source: mca.legmt.gov↗ (opens in a new tab) | Handled by statute. Firing is wrongful if you materially broke your own written personnel policy, costing the employee a fair chance to keep the job (Mont. Code § 39-2-904). Source: mca.legmt.gov↗ (opens in a new tab) |
| Nebraska | Recognized, but narrow. Only very clear public policy counts, such as firing for a workers' comp claim or reporting crime (Dibbern v. York Surgical Associates, Nebraska Supreme Court, 2025). Source: nebraska.gov↗ (opens in a new tab) | Courts in Nebraska decide this case by case. Not confirmed from a current official source, so check with an employment lawyer. Source: U.S. BLS survey, January 2001↗ (opens in a new tab) |
| Nevada | Recognized. Firing someone for seeking workers' comp, serving on a jury, or refusing to break the law can be wrongful (Hansen v. Harrah's, Nevada Supreme Court, 1984). Source: nvcourts.gov↗ (opens in a new tab) | Recognized. An employee with an implied contract cannot be fired without employer liability, so use clear at-will disclaimers (Nevada Legislative Counsel Bureau, 2016). Source: leg.state.nv.us↗ (opens in a new tab) |
| New Hampshire | Recognized. Firing in bad faith for doing what public policy encourages, or refusing what it condemns, is wrongful (Lacasse, N.H. Supreme Court, 2006; federal court applying N.H. law). Source: Federal court applying N.H. law↗ (opens in a new tab) Source: nhd.uscourts.gov↗ (opens in a new tab) | Recognized. Handbook promises can bind you unless the handbook clearly says it is not a contract (Panto v. Moore, N.H. Supreme Court, 1988; federal court applying N.H. law). Source: Federal court applying N.H. law↗ (opens in a new tab) |
| New Jersey | Recognized. Firing an at-will employee in violation of a clear mandate of public policy is wrongful (Pierce v. Ortho Pharmaceutical, N.J. Supreme Court, 1980). Source: njcourts.gov↗ (opens in a new tab) | Recognized. A handbook can create a binding promise unless it has a prominent, clear at-will disclaimer (Woolley v. Hoffmann-La Roche, N.J. Supreme Court, 1985). Source: njcourts.gov↗ (opens in a new tab) |
| New Mexico | Recognized. Firing someone for conduct public policy protects is retaliatory discharge, and punitive damages are available (Rhein v. ADT Automotive, N.M. Supreme Court, 1996). Source: supremecourt.nmcourts.gov↗ (opens in a new tab) | Recognized. Specific promises, conduct or handbook language can create an implied for-cause contract; a clear at-will reservation can prevent one (Hartbarger v. Frank Paxton Co., N.M. Supreme Court, 1993). Source: supremecourt.nmcourts.gov↗ (opens in a new tab) |
| New York | Not recognized. Courts allow no general wrongful-discharge claim for at-will employees; statutes like the whistleblower law fill the gap (Murphy v. American Home Products, N.Y. Court of Appeals, 1983). Source: nycourts.gov↗ (opens in a new tab) | Limited. A handbook binds you only if it expressly limits firing, like 'just cause only', and the worker relied on it (Weiner v. McGraw-Hill, N.Y. Court of Appeals, 1982). Source: nycourts.gov↗ (opens in a new tab) |
| North Carolina | Recognized. Firing someone for a reason that breaks public policy, such as filing a workers' comp claim, can be wrongful (Whitings v. Wolfson Casing, N.C. Court of Appeals, 2005). Source: nccourts.gov↗ (opens in a new tab) | Courts in North Carolina decide this case by case. Not confirmed from a current official source, so check with an employment lawyer. Source: U.S. BLS survey, January 2001↗ (opens in a new tab) |
| North Dakota | Courts in North Dakota decide this case by case. Not confirmed from a current official source, so check with an employment lawyer. Source: U.S. BLS survey, January 2001↗ (opens in a new tab) | Courts in North Dakota decide this case by case. Not confirmed from a current official source, so check with an employment lawyer. Source: U.S. BLS survey, January 2001↗ (opens in a new tab) |
| Ohio | Recognized. Firing someone against clear public policy can be wrongful, but the employee must name the specific law behind it (Dohme v. Eurand America, Ohio Supreme Court, 2011). Source: supremecourt.ohio.gov↗ (opens in a new tab) | Recognized. A handbook or specific promise can create an implied contract, but the burden is heavy and disclaimers usually defeat it (Mers v. Dispatch Printing, Ohio Supreme Court, 1985). Source: supremecourt.ohio.gov↗ (opens in a new tab) |
| Oklahoma | Recognized, but narrow. Firing someone for refusing to violate clear Oklahoma public policy can be wrongful, unless a statute gives a remedy (Burk v. K-Mart, Okla. Supreme Court, 1989). Source: Federal court applying Oklahoma law↗ (opens in a new tab) Source: ca10.uscourts.gov↗ (opens in a new tab) | Recognized, but narrow. A handbook can create an implied contract; a clear disclaimer prevents this unless your conduct contradicts it (Russell v. Board of Commissioners, Okla. Supreme Court, 1997). Source: Federal court applying Oklahoma law↗ (opens in a new tab) Source: ca10.uscourts.gov↗ (opens in a new tab) |
| Oregon | Recognized. Firing someone for fulfilling an important public duty, such as reporting a crime to police, can be wrongful (McManus v. Auchincloss, Oregon Court of Appeals, 2015). Source: courts.oregon.gov↗ (opens in a new tab) | Possible. A contract can limit firing; Oregon's labor bureau advises stating that handbook policies are guidelines, not a contract. Source: oregon.gov↗ (opens in a new tab) |
| Pennsylvania | Recognized, but narrow. It covers cases like being required to commit a crime, not claims a statute already remedies (McLaughlin v. Gastrointestinal Specialists, Pa. Supreme Court, 2000). Source: pacourts.us↗ (opens in a new tab) | Recognized, but narrow. A handbook binds you only if it clearly shows you meant to give up at-will employment (Bauer v. Pottsville Area EMS, Pa. Superior Court, 2000). Source: pacourts.us↗ (opens in a new tab) |
| Rhode Island | Limited. By statute, you cannot fire someone for reporting suspected legal violations or for refusing to break the law (R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-50-3). Source: webserver.rilegislature.gov↗ (opens in a new tab) | Courts in Rhode Island decide this case by case. Not confirmed from a current official source, so check with an employment lawyer. Source: U.S. BLS survey, January 2001↗ (opens in a new tab) |
| South Carolina | Recognized, but narrow. Firing someone against clear public policy, like for refusing to break the law, is wrongful (Ludwick v. This Minute of Carolina, S.C. Supreme Court, 1985). Source: S.C. Supreme Court, Lawson, 2000↗ (opens in a new tab) Source: sccourts.org↗ (opens in a new tab) | Limited. A handbook is not a contract if it has a conspicuous disclaimer in underlined capitals on page one, signed by the employee (S.C. Code § 41-1-110, 2004). Source: scstatehouse.gov↗ (opens in a new tab) |
| South Dakota | Recognized. Firing someone for refusing to commit a crime, whistleblowing, or filing a workers' comp claim can be wrongful (Dahl v. Combined Insurance Co., S.D. Supreme Court, 2001). Source: Federal court applying S.D. law↗ (opens in a new tab) | Limited. A handbook binds you only if it lists exclusive firing reasons and a mandatory procedure; clear at-will disclaimers prevent this (Hollander v. Douglas County, S.D. Supreme Court, 2000). Source: Federal court applying S.D. law↗ (opens in a new tab) |
| Tennessee | Recognized. By statute, you cannot fire someone for reporting or objecting to illegal activity (Tennessee Public Protection Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-1-304). Source: lwdsupport.tn.gov↗ (opens in a new tab) | Limited. A federal court applying Tennessee law says handbooks bind employers only if they use specific language showing intent to be bound (Rose v. Tipton County, 1997). Source: Federal court applying Tennessee law↗ (opens in a new tab) |
| Texas | Recognized, but narrow. Firing someone solely for refusing to commit an illegal act is wrongful (Sabine Pilot Service v. Hauck, Texas Supreme Court, 1985). Source: txcourts.gov↗ (opens in a new tab) Source: efte.twc.texas.gov↗ (opens in a new tab) | Limited. General assurances of job security are not specific enough to overcome the at-will presumption (Montgomery County Hospital District v. Brown, Texas Supreme Court, 1998). Source: Texas appeals court, 2001↗ (opens in a new tab) |
| Utah | Recognized, but narrow. A federal court applying Utah law says firing in violation of a clear and substantial public policy is wrongful (Ray v. Wal-Mart, Utah Supreme Court, 2015). Source: Federal court applying Utah law↗ (opens in a new tab) | Recognized. A federal court applying Utah law says handbook terms can create an implied contract that changes at-will employment (Hodgson v. Bunzl Utah, Utah Supreme Court, 1992). Source: Federal court applying Utah law↗ (opens in a new tab) Source: govinfo.gov↗ (opens in a new tab) |
| Vermont | Recognized. Firing that breaks a clear and compelling public policy can be wrongful (Payne v. Rozendaal, 1986, applied in Boynton v. ClearChoiceMD, Vermont Supreme Court, 2019). Source: vtcourts.gov↗ (opens in a new tab) | Recognized. At-will status can be changed by contract or written policy (Ross v. Times Mirror, 1995, cited in Boynton v. ClearChoiceMD, 2019). Source: vtcourts.gov↗ (opens in a new tab) |
| Virginia | Recognized, but narrow. Only three situations qualify, such as firing for refusing to commit a crime (Bowman v. State Bank of Keysville, 1985; Francis, Virginia Supreme Court, 2017). Source: vacourts.gov↗ (opens in a new tab) | Limited. A federal court applying Virginia law says handbooks can sometimes create contract rights, but a clear disclaimer defeats them (Misjuns v. City of Lynchburg, 4th Cir., 2025). Source: Federal court applying Virginia law↗ (opens in a new tab) |
| Washington | Recognized, but narrow. Firing in breach of a clear public policy, such as for refusing to break the law, is a tort (Rose v. Anderson Hay & Grain, 2015). Source: courts.wa.gov↗ (opens in a new tab) | Recognized. Handbook promises of specific treatment in specific situations, relied on by the employee, can bind an employer (Thompson v. St. Regis, 1984; unpublished Wiley v. Microsoft, 2014). Source: Unpublished Wash. appeals opinion↗ (opens in a new tab) |
| West Virginia | Recognized. Firing someone in retaliation for exercising a substantial public policy right can lead to damages (Harless v. First National Bank, 1978; Peters v. Rivers Edge Mining, 2009). Source: courtswv.gov↗ (opens in a new tab) | Recognized. A handbook definitely promising no firing except for set reasons can be a contract, unless clearly disclaimed (Williams v. Precision Coil, W. Va. Supreme Court, 1995). Source: courtswv.gov↗ (opens in a new tab) |
| Wisconsin | Recognized, but narrow. Firing that goes against a fundamental and well-defined public policy in existing law can be wrongful (Brockmeyer v. Dun & Bradstreet, 1983; Bammert, 2002). Source: wicourts.gov↗ (opens in a new tab) | Recognized, but narrow. A handbook can change at-will status only if its express terms show both sides meant to be bound (Ferraro v. Koelsch, Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1985). Source: Quoted in Loth v. Milwaukee, 2008↗ (opens in a new tab) |
| Wyoming | Recognized, but narrow. A worker fired for filing a workers' compensation claim may have a civil claim against the employer (Wyoming Judicial Branch legal help guide). Source: wyocourts.gov↗ (opens in a new tab) | Courts in Wyoming decide this case by case. Not confirmed from a current official source, so check with an employment lawyer. Source: U.S. BLS survey, January 2001↗ (opens in a new tab) |
