New Hampshire — Termination

New Hampshire requires employers to pay final wages according to different timelines depending on the type of separation. When an employer discharges an employee, the employer must pay all wages in full within 72 hours. When an employee quits or resigns, wages are due by the next regular payday; however, if the employee provides at least one pay period's notice of intention to quit, the employer must pay all wages within 72 hours. When an employee is laid off or work is suspended due to a labor dispute, wages are due by the next regular payday.

Source: N.H. Rev. Stat. § 275:44

New Hampshire follows the common-law employment-at-will doctrine. In the absence of an employment contract for a definite term, either the employer or the employee may terminate the relationship at any time, for any reason not prohibited by law, and without advance notice. The New Hampshire Supreme Court articulated this rule in Cloutier v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 121 N.H. 915 (1981), holding that "in the absence of an employment contract, both parties [are] free at any time to terminate the employment relationship, with or without cause."

Despite this broad discretion, New Hampshire recognizes several important exceptions that limit an employer's ability to discharge at will.

Public policy exception

New Hampshire courts recognize a wrongful-discharge claim when a termination is motivated by bad faith, malice, or retaliation and contravenes public policy. The foundational case is Monge v. Beebe Rubber Co., 114 N.H. 130 (1974), in which the state Supreme Court held that "a termination by the employer of a contract of employment at will which is motivated by bad faith or malice or based on retaliation is not in the best interest of the economic system or the public good and constitutes a breach of the employment contract." Later cases, including Cloutier, clarified that the public policy need not be based solely on statutory authority; it may be derived from constitutional provisions, statutes, regulations, or judicially recognized policies reflecting the state's interest.

Common examples of terminations that violate public policy include discharging an employee for refusing to engage in illegal conduct, for reporting employer violations of law (whistleblowing), for filing a workers' compensation claim, for serving on a jury, or for exercising a legal right.

Statutory protections

New Hampshire statutes prohibit termination based on specific protected activities or characteristics, even in the at-will context. These include:

• Discrimination: N.H. Rev. Stat. § 354-A:7 prohibits employers with six or more employees from terminating an employee on the basis of age, sex, gender identity, race, color, marital status, physical or mental disability, religious creed, national origin, or sexual orientation.
• Whistleblowing: N.H. Rev. Stat. § 275-E:2 protects employees from discharge for reporting an employer's violation of state or federal law, refusing to carry out a directive the employee reasonably believes violates the law, or participating in a related investigation, hearing, or inquiry.
• Jury duty: N.H. Rev. Stat. § 500-A:14 prohibits termination for taking time off to serve on a jury.
• Military service: N.H. Rev. Stat. § 110-C:1 protects employees who take leave for National Guard or Reserve duty or training.
• Wage disclosure: N.H. Rev. Stat. § 275:41-b prohibits termination for disclosing the employee's wages, salary, or paid benefits.
• Domestic violence victim status: N.H. Rev. Stat. § 275:71 prohibits adverse employment action because an employee is a victim of domestic violence, harassment, sexual assault, or stalking.
• Tobacco use outside employment: N.H. Rev. Stat. § 275:37-a bars termination for using tobacco products outside the course of employment.

Federal anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation statutes (Title VII, ADA, ADEA, FMLA, OSHA whistleblower provisions, etc.) overlay these state protections.

Implied contract exception

An employer's written policies, such as those in an employee handbook, may modify the at-will relationship and create enforceable contractual obligations. In Panto v. Moore Business Forms, Inc., 130 N.H. 730 (1988), the New Hampshire Supreme Court held that an employer who distributes a handbook indicating employees will not be fired without cause, or without the benefit of administrative due process, "states in effect that the employer will no longer treat the relationship as being literally at-will." The employee need not formally agree to or bargain for these provisions; notice of them is sufficient. Conversely, a clear and conspicuous disclaimer in the handbook preserving at-will status can prevent such modification (see Butler v. Walker Power, Inc., 137 N.H. 432 (1993)).

Covenant of good faith and fair dealing

New Hampshire courts have recognized, in limited circumstances, an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in employment relationships, though this exception has been applied narrowly and is closely tied to the public-policy doctrine articulated in Monge. Practitioners should note that this remains a less-developed strand of New Hampshire wrongful-discharge law compared to the public-policy and implied-contract exceptions.

Source: Cloutier v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 121 N.H. 915 (1981) | N.H. Rev. Stat. § 354-A:7 | N.H. Rev. Stat. § 275-E:2 | N.H. Rev. Stat. § 500-A:14 | N.H. Rev. Stat. § 110-C:1 | N.H. Rev. Stat. § 275:41-b | N.H. Rev. Stat. § 275:71 | N.H. Rev. Stat. § 275:37-a