Case Title: Clement v. Woodstock Resort Corp.

Citation: 165 Vt 627, 687 A.2d 886

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1996-10-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
Clement v. Woodstock Resort Corp.  (95-375); 165 Vt 627; 687 A.2d 886

[Opinion Filed 10-Oct-1996]


                               ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 95-375

                            SEPTEMBER TERM, 1996


David A. Clement                     }     APPEALED FROM:
                                     }
                                     }
     v.                              }     Windsor Superior Court
                                     }
Woodstock Resort Corp.               }
                                     }     DOCKET NO. S521-91WrC


       In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Defendant Woodstock Resort Corporation appeals a jury verdict awarding
  plaintiff David A. Clement damages for wrongful discharge.  Defendant
  contends that (1) the court's instructions erroneously substituted its
  judgment for that of the jury's on whether defendant's employee handbook
  and policy manual created an employment contract obligating defendant to
  follow progressive disciplinary steps and to fire plaintiff only for cause;
  (2) there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict; and (3)
  there was insufficient evidence to support the damage award.  We affirm.

       Plaintiff worked for defendant as a groundskeeper and mechanic for
  several summers before being hired as a custodian on a full-time basis. 
  After one year on the job, plaintiff was suspended and discharged for
  "insubordination" stemming from a critical and profane note he allegedly
  sent his supervisor.  Plaintiff testified that he wrote the note to himself
  to ventilate his frustrations and did not intend that it be read by anyone
  else.  Defendant claimed at trial that other misconduct also played a role
  in plaintiff's firing, including allegations that he improperly examined
  confidential papers on his supervisor's desk and sexually harassed a
  co-worker. Although the co-worker corroborated the allegation at trial, no
  complaint, investigation, or warning ever issued in connection with these
  additional allegations of misconduct.

       Plaintiff argued at trial that his discharge violated an implied
  agreement or promise by defendant to terminate only for cause and to follow
  a progressive disciplinary procedure (verbal warning, written warning,
  suspension, hearing, termination) based upon its employee handbook and
  policy manual.  See Taylor v. National Life Ins. Co., 161 Vt. 457, 464,