Case Title: Wyatt v. BellSouth, Inc.

Citation: 757 So. 2d 403

Docket Number: 1980927

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 2000-01-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
757 So. 2d 403 (2000)
Donovan WYATT
v.
BELLSOUTH, INC., et al.
1980927.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
January 21, 2000.
David L. Yewell of Kamuf, Yewell, Pace & Condon, Owensboro, Kentucky; and Griffin Sikes, Jr., Montgomery, for appellant.
Walter R. Byars of Steiner-Crum, Byars & Main, P.C., Montgomery; Jeffrey E. Holmes of Lange, Simpson, Robinson & Somerville, Birmingham; and Robert E. Thomas of BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia, for appellees.
LYONS, Justice.
The United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama has certified to this Court the following questions, pursuant to Rule 18, Ala. R.App. P.:
The district court described the facts as follows:
We have accepted, without independent analysis, the district court's conclusion, evident from the phrasing of the issue, that the conduct of BSC described in the fore-going factual background does not in any way alter the fundamental nature of Wyatt's at-will employment status.[1]*406 Moreover, we have also accepted without further analysis the district court's conclusion that the elements of promissory estoppel can be proven based on the statement of facts. Consequently, to answer this question, we assume 1) that the plaintiff Wyatt will prevail on his allegation that BSC promised it would investigate any complaints against him, would listen to both sides of the story, and would view with skepticism any criticism of his performance; 2) that BSC is precluded by the doctrine of promissory estoppel from denying such promises were made; and 3) that, even with the first two assumptions, Wyatt will not be able to show that his subsequent discharge was wrongful, because of the rule that an employee's contract for at-will employment may be terminated by either party with or without cause or justification. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc., v. Campbell, 512 So. 2d 725, 728 (Ala.1987).
In this posture, Wyatt's position is analogous to that of a plaintiff who claims the defendant denied him a due-process hearing, but who would not have prevailed even had he been allowed a hearing. See Hessel v. O'Hearn, 977 F.2d 299, 302 (7th Cir.1992) (in an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, if the plaintiff's right to a hearing has been denied, but at a hearing the plaintiff would not have won, then the plaintiff must prove some emotional harm or other specific injury in order to recover more than nominal damages).
We will consider the extent to which lost wages can form a component of damages under the facts stated by the district court, assuming the plaintiff prevails on his promissory-estoppel theory. While Alabama has accepted the doctrine of promissory estoppel, as it is stated in Restatement (First) of Contracts § 90 (1932), see Dixieland Food Stores, Inc. v. Geddert, 505 So. 2d 371 (Ala.1987), this Court has not had occasion to determine the scope of the damages recoverable under this doctrine. We are impressed with the analysis in Remes v. Nordic Group, Inc., 169 Vt. 37, 40-41, 726 A.2d 77, 79-80 (1999), where the Supreme Court of Vermont stated:
If BSC had performed in accordance with the promises made to Wyatt, then BSC would have made a full investigation; it would have heard both sides of the story; and it would have looked at the allegations against Wyatt with skepticism. However, BSC could have terminated Wyatt at the end of its investigation, for any reason whatever. Under these circumstances, we exercise our discretion by restricting Wyatt's recoverable damages to compensation for those losses that directly derive from the breach of BSC's promises, not to include losses that stem from the termination of his employment. In Curacare Inc. v. Pollack, 501 So. 2d 470 (Ala. Civ.App.1986), the employment relationship between the parties was governed by a written contract that expressly stated that termination of the relationship by either party was to be accompanied by two weeks' written notice. The employee was terminated before the end of the contract term, without written notice. He sued. Id. at 471. A jury returned a verdict in favor of the employee, awarding him $8,500 in damages, which was well in excess of the $562.50 in salary he would have earned during the two weeks for which he was entitled to notice. The employer appealed. Id. The Court of Civil Appeals held that the remedy for the employer's breach of the contract was to put the employee in the position he would have occupied absent the breach. Id. at 472. The court held:
Id. at 472.
Just as the plaintiff in Curacare was entitled to lost wages and benefits only for the two-week notice period, Wyatt is entitled to receive only the lost wages and benefits he would have received for the time it would reasonably have taken BSC to conduct the investigation it should have conducted.
The doctrine of promissory estoppel should not be used as a basis for awarding damages that would not, under general principles of contract law, be recoverable in an action for breach of contract. Otherwise, the plaintiff in an action founded on promissory estoppel would be in a better position than if he had been entitled to recover in an action on a contract. See Deli v. University of Minnesota, 578 N.W.2d 779, 783 (Minn.Ct.App. 1998) ("Because promissory estoppel is a contract-based claim, to recover emotional distress damages, Deli was required to plead and prove the existence of an independent tort."). Our law also requires that the plaintiff prove an independent tort in order to recover damages for mental anguish in an employment setting. In Hobson v. American Cast Iron Pipe Co., 690 So. 2d 341 (Ala.1997), we stated: "This Court has not recognized claims for emotional distress in an employment case. In fact, it has stated: `[N]o recovery has ever been allowed for mental distress arising from the wrongful discharge of an employee in breach of an employment contract.'" Id. at 344, citing Southern Medical Health Systems, Inc., v. Vaughn, 669 So. 2d 98 (Ala.1995). Surely, as an employee at will, Wyatt cannot recover compensatory damages for mental anguish when employees whose employment was not at will could not have recovered
CERTIFIED QUESTIONS ANSWERED.
HOOPER, C.J., and MADDOX, COOK, SEE, BROWN, and ENGLAND, JJ., concur.
HOUSTON and JOHNSTONE, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part.
HOUSTON, Justice (concurring as to the answer to the second question and dissenting as to the answer to the first question).
The answer to the first question is limited by the designation of Wyatt as "a terminated at-will employee," because this precludes a consideration of the promissory-estoppel claim as altering his "at-will" status. Even so, if Wyatt proves to a jury's reasonable satisfaction that if Bell-South had honored its promises, then, more likely than not, it would not have discharged him and he would have remained in BellSouth's employ, I would permit Wyatt to offer evidence of lost wages as an element of his recoverable loss sustained as a result of BellSouth's alleged perfidy, and, if a jury agrees with him, to collect those wages as damages.
Thus, I dissent from the answer given to the district court's first question. However, I concur in the answer given to the second question.
JOHNSTONE, J., concurs.
[1]  Justice Houston's dissent directed to our answer to the first question would strike through that portion of the question containing the premise that Wyatt's at-will status would not be altered even if he prevailed on the promissory-estoppel claim. We have answered the question as it is phrased and express no opinion as to the validity of its premise.