Case Title: Sarvis v. Vermont State Colleges

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2001-03-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
Sarvis v. Vermont State Colleges (99-390); 172 Vt. 76; 772 A.2d 494

[Filed 02-Mar-2001]

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal  revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of  Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any  errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.

                                 No. 99-390

Robert H. Sarvis                              Supreme Court

                                              On Appeal from
     v.	                                      Washington Superior Court

Vermont State Colleges	                      September Term, 2000

David A. Jenkins, J.

Robert H. Sarvis, Pro Se, Brattleboro, Plaintiff-Appellant.

Michael J. Harris of Sutherland, Collins, McMahon & Harris, Inc., 
  Burlington, for Defendant-Appellee.

PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Morse, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ.

       SKOGLUND, J.   Plaintiff  Robert Sarvis appeals the grant of summary
  judgment in favor of  defendant Vermont State Colleges.  Plaintiff
  contends:  (1) the court erred when it found defendant  had just cause to
  terminate his employment contracts; and (2) he is entitled to Title VII
  protection  because defendant terminated him for his criminal history.   We
  affirm.

       The material facts in this case are not in dispute.  On March 13,
  1995, plaintiff was convicted  of five counts of bank fraud and sentenced
  to serve forty-six months in prison.  He was ordered to  pay over $12
  million in restitution to five banks in order of priority, including two 
  million dollars to  the Proctor Bank, a Vermont bank, which was given top
  payment priority.  He was incarcerated from  April 4, 1995 to August 17,
  1998, at the Allenwood prison in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, where he  worked
  in the prison's electric department.  In August of 1998, two weeks after he
  was released from  prison, plaintiff applied for an adjunct professor
  position at Community College of Vermont (CCV),  a division of defendant. 
  Plaintiff provided defendant with a resume, in which he indicated 

 

  that from 1984-1998, he was "President and Chairman of the Board" of "CMI
  International Inc.,  Boston, Massachusetts."  In describing his duties,
  plaintiff indicated he was "[r]esponsible for all  operations and financial
  matters."  He ended his summary with the following:  "[f]rom 1995-1998 
  this company was sold off by various divisions and I have retired."
  Defendant replied, and asked  plaintiff to fill out an "Instructor
  Information" form.  On September 30, 1998, plaintiff submitted this  form
  and, in the space provided to list applicant's "Most Recent Previous
  Employment," plaintiff  referred his reader to the resume he submitted with
  his August letter.

       Plaintiff also applied for a position as CCV's Coordinator of Academic
  Services, and  submitted a second resume in connection with this
  application.  The second resume was similar to  the first, except he
  changed the last line of his description of duties at CMI to read:  "From
  1995-1998 this company was sold off by various divisions.  I have since
  been semi-retired."  Under the   "Business Experience" heading, he also
  added a line, "1998-present" "Semi-retired.  Adjunct  Instructor of
  Business at Colby-Sawyer College and Franklin Pierce College."   In a
  memorandum to  a CCV administrator, plaintiff also advised that "I have not
  'worked' for almost four years," and  discouraged defendant from contacting
  management at Franklin Pierce for additional references.  

       Plaintiff provided defendant with additional application materials,
  attempting to secure a  teaching position. Plaintiff listed for defendant
  the classes he believed defendant would find him  "well equipped to teach." 
  He highlighted  business law and business ethics as courses in which he 
  had "the highest level of capability and interest."  He alerted defendant
  that he had "a great interest  and knowledge of business law" and that he
  believed he would do "an excellent job" teaching a  business ethics class
  because this subject was "of particular concern" to him.

       In response to the information plaintiff provided, defendant entered
  into three employment  contracts with plaintiff, covering plaintiff's
  duties as academic coordinator, teacher, and independent  studies
  instructor.  After plaintiff commenced performance on the coordinator and
  independent study  contracts, his probation officer alerted defendant to
  plaintiff's criminal history.  Defendant 

 

  terminated plaintiff before the expiration of his contracts of employment,
  (FN1) citing,

       [t]he nature of the federal offenses (involving
       dishonesty), the gravity  of the offenses (multiple counts of
       bank fraud, over $12 million  dollars in restitution) the
       presence of local victims (Proctor Bank and  any other
       Vermont victims) and the potential harm to CCV's  reputation,
       [as] substantial factors contributing to the termination 
       decision.

       Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that defendant was liable for
  breach of all three contracts  and wrongful termination.  Plaintiff later
  amended the complaint to add a demand for punitive  damages based on
  defendant's alleged Title VII violation.  Plaintiff moved for summary
  judgment  contending there were no disputed facts, and that he was entitled
  to judgment as a matter of law on  all counts of the complaint.  Defendant
  opposed the motion, and also moved for summary judgment  on all claims. 
  Defendant's summary judgment motion asserted that plaintiff was fired
  during the  probationary period during which he was subject to termination
  for any reason, and plaintiff's breach  of contract claims are barred due
  to his resume fraud and criminal background history, and fraud in  the
  inducement permitted CCV to rescind the contracts.  The court granted
  defendant's motion  concluding that it was reasonable for defendant to
  discharge plaintiff because of his material  misrepresentations about his
  criminal record, and that defendant had notice that dishonesty and fraud 
  were just cause for dismissal.  See In re Towle, 164 Vt. 145, 150,