Case Title: MIECH v. SHERIDAN COUNTY, WYOMING

Citation: 

Docket Number: 02-16

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2002-12-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
MIECH v. SHERIDAN COUNTY, WYOMING2002 WY 17859 P.3d 143Case Number: 02-16Decided: 12/11/2002
OCTOBER TERM, A.D. 2002

                                                                                                
    

WALTER 
B. MIECH,

Appellant(Plaintiff),

 

v.

 

SHERIDAN 
COUNTY, WYOMING,

Appellee(Defendant).

 

United 
States District Court for the District of Wyoming

The 
Honorable William F. Downes, Judge

 

Representing 
Appellant:

            
Donald E. Miller of Graves, Miller & Kingston, P.C., Cheyenne, 
Wyoming  

 

Representing 
Appellee:

            
Roger E. Shumate of Murane & Bostwick, LLC, Casper, Wyoming  
 

Before HILL, C.J., and GOLDEN, LEHMAN,* KITE, and VOIGT, 
JJ.

 
 
        

*Chief Justice at time of oral argument

 
 
     

            
KITE, Justice.

 
 

[¶1]      This case comes before 
the court on the following certified question from the United States District 
Court for the District of Wyoming:

 
   
            
      

Whether 
the holding in Brodie v. General Chemical Corp., 934 P.2d 1263 (Wyo. 
1997), requiring additional consideration when an employer modifies an 
employment contract implied from an employee handbook, applies when a 
newly-elected governing body modifies personnel policies to restore at-will 
status?

  

We answer the certified question as follows:

 
 
     

(1)  The 
holding in Brodie v. General Chemical Corporation, 934 P.2d 1263 (Wyo. 
1997), applies when a newly elected governing body modifies personnel policies 
to restore at-will status if a showing has been made that the employment 
contract implied from an employee handbook was justified by necessity and 
benefit to the governing body at the time the contract was made.  If that showing has been made, the new 
governing body cannot void the contract under Mariano & Associates, P.C. 
v. Board of County Commissioners of County of Sublette, 737 P.2d 323 (Wyo. 
1987), and the usual rules of employment contract law apply, including the 
Brodie requirement that additional consideration must be provided 
to effectively modify an implied employment contract .

  

(2)  Conversely, 
the holding in Brodie does not apply when a newly elected 
governing body modifies personnel policies to restore at-will status if 
there has been no showing that the employment contract implied from an employee 
handbook was justified by necessity and benefit to the governing body at the 
time the contract was made.  If no 
such showing is made, the new governing body can void the contract under 
Mariano, and the Brodie 
requirement of additional consideration does not apply.

 
     
  

FACTS

 

[¶2]      In a W.R.A.P. 11 
certification of a question of law, we rely upon the facts presented by the 
certifying court.  Kaycee Land 
and Livestock v. Flahive, 2002 WY 73, ¶3, 46 P.3d 323, ¶3 (Wyo. 2002).  The 
Certification Order (footnote omitted) contains the following statement of facts 
relevant to the certified question:
    
           
 

            
From 1983 until June 30, 1999, [Walter Miech] was employed as a fire 
fighter in the Sheridan County Fire Department.  [His] position with the Sheridan County 
Fire Department was eliminated because fire and emergency medical services in 
Sheridan County and the City of Sheridan were consolidated by agreement.  [Mr. Miech] was 
given the opportunity to be assigned to work for the City of Sheridan Fire 
Department but declined to pursue this opportunity for personal 
reasons.

 
       
              
     

            
Since 1980, the Board of County Commissioners of Sheridan County has 
revised the 1980 personnel policies on numerous occasions.  The most recent revision to the policies 
occurred on March 22, 1999.  As a 
result, Sheridan County maintained that on the effective date of [Mr. Miech's] 
termination, the March 22, 1999, personnel policy was the policy applicable to 
[Mr. Miech's] employment.  In any event, because of previous litigation 
leaving unresolved questions regarding the applicability of the 1980 personnel 
policies, Sheridan County agreed to provide [Mr. Miech] the administrative 
remedies created by the 1980 personnel policies at the time of his 
termination.
  
          
           
           
     

. . .
 

            
In his complaint against Sheridan County, [Mr.] Miech alleged causes of 
action for violation of due process rights, negligence and breach of implied 
contract.  [Mr. Miech] contends that 
he had a protected property interest in continued employment with Sheridan 
County and that this property right was terminated without due process.  The claimed source of his asserted 
property interest is an employment contract implied from the 1980 Personnel 
Policies and Procedures Manual for Sheridan County, Wyoming.  [Mr. Miech's] breach of contract claim is 
based on [Sheridan County's] alleged "failure to abide by and follow the terms 
of its contract of employment with [Mr. Miech] as contained within the 1980 
personnel policy."

 
      
             
             
  

            
[Sheridan County] maintains that the 1980 personnel policies were not in 
effect when [Mr. Miech] was terminated, and the subsequent revisions to such 
policies clearly state that county employees are at-will and create no implied 
contract of employment.  Therefore, 
[Sheridan County] argues, [Mr. Miech] had no protected property interest in his 
employment and there is no basis for the breach of contract claim.  [Mr. Miech] contends that none of the 
revisions to the 1980 personnel policies are valid as to him because he was not 
given consideration for the changes, while [Sheridan County] contends that a 
newly-elected governing body can revise personnel policies upon their election 
without the consideration required by Brodie.

 

            
Following a hearing on [Sheridan County's] Motion for Summary Judgment, 
this Court dismissed [Mr. Miech's] due process claim finding that, even assuming 
he had a property interest in continued employment pursuant to the 1980 
personnel rules, [Mr. Miech] was not deprived of due process.  The Court reserved 
judgment on [Mr. Miech's] breach of contract claim pending the Wyoming Supreme 
Court's answer to the question certified herein.

 
      
            
   

DISCUSSION

 

[¶3]      Much of the 
discussion, and the outcome, in this case hinges on two Wyoming cases:  Mariano, 737 P.2d 323, and 
Brodie, 934 P.2d 1263.  In 
Mariano, the court held that a newly elected governing body may challenge 
a government contract entered into by, and extending beyond the term of office 
of, the preceding governing body if no showing is made that the contract was 
necessary and of benefit to the governing body at the time the contract was 
made. In Brodie, a case involving a 
contract with a private rather than a governmental employer, the court held that 
additional consideration must be provided to modify an implied for cause 
employment contract to restore at-will status.

 
            
          
            
 

[¶4]      The question we 
are asked to decide is whether the holding in Brodie applies in the 
context of government employment when a newly constituted governing body 
modifies an existing implied employment contract to restore at-will status.  In other words, is a newly constituted 
governing body required to provide additional consideration in order to 
effectively modify an existing employment contract?  With this background in mind, we turn to 
the parties' contentions.  

 

[¶5]      Walter Miech 
asserts the personnel policies provided to him when he began his employment with 
Sheridan County created an implied for cause employment contract which was still 
in effect at the time the county eliminated his position.  He contends the newly elected county 
officials' subsequent efforts to revise the implied contract were not effective 
because additional consideration did not support the revisions as Brodie 
requires.  Mr. Miech also 
contends he was a nonadministrative, nonessential, nonsupervisory employee; 
Mariano does not apply to employees in that category; and, therefore, 
newly elected county officials could not void his contract.  

 

[¶6]      Sheridan County 
asserts that, under Mariano, a newly elected governing body may modify 
personnel policies, including for cause employment contracts implied from 
employee handbooks, to restore at-will employment without providing additional 
consideration.  The county claims 
subsequent county officials effectively modified any employment contract implied 
from the handbook provided to Mr. Miech when he was hired to restore at-will 
employment.  Under the county's 
theory, Mr. Miech was an at-will employee when his position was eliminated, and 
he had no right to continued employment.  
The county further contends Mr. Miech's argument that he was among a 
class of employees to which Mariano does not apply goes beyond the scope of the 
certified question.

 
        
   

[¶7]      We begin our 
consideration of the certified question with a careful examination of the 
court's holding in Mariano.1  The court 
held:

 
  

[S]ubject 
to only applicable state statutes as specifically applied, any contract with a 
unit of government of the state of Wyoming which extends beyond the term of 
office of the governmental decisionmakers . . . can be subject to challenge if, 
in consideration of the facts and circumstances, the necessity and benefit to 
the governmental unit did not justify the extended term when the agreement was 
made.  

 

737 P.2d  at 329.  Thus, we determine on 
a case-by-case basis whether a contract is voidable under Mariano 
according to the particular facts and circumstances, and that determination 
depends upon whether a contract extending beyond the term of the contracting 
authority was justified by governmental necessity and benefit at the time the 
contract was made.  The party 
seeking to enforce the contract has the burden of proving the extended contract 
term was necessary and of benefit to the governing body at the time the contract 
was made.  737 P.2d  at 330.  The court applied these standards in 
Mariano to hold a two-year contract for the performance of auditing 
services was voidable.  Id.  While suggesting some possible 
evidentiary scenarios which might satisfy the required showing, the court found 
on the evidence presented that the accounting firm failed to meet its burden of 
proving benefit or necessity justifying the two-year contract term.  737 P.2d  at 330-31.  Thus, Mariano's holding that the 
contract was voidable turned on a failure of proof.  

 

[¶8]      Relying on 
Mariano, the court in Keabler v. City of Riverton, 808 P.2d 205, 207 (Wyo. 1991), likewise held a new city administration could void a contract 
based upon a failure of proof.  In 
the contract at issue, the city promised to provide insurance benefits to city 
employees.  A subsequent 
administration withdrew the promise of insurance benefits.  The court held the employees failed to 
make an adequate showing that the promise to provide insurance was reasonably 
necessary or of definable advantage to the city.  Addressing the employees' contention that they 
held key positions with the city and the contract promoted a stable work force, 
the court stated:

 
    
              
    

While 
a secure, stable, and fully insured work force is beneficial to the City, the 
employees fall short in presenting a material fact to indicate that providing 
them with insurance was reasonably necessary or of a definable advantage to the 
City.  In any event, the mere conclusory statements 
made by counsel are not competent evidence necessary to carry the burden to 
preclude summary judgment.

 
     
           
      

Keabler, 
808 P.2d  at 207.

  

[¶9]      More recently, in 
Jewell v. North Big Horn Hospital District, 953 P.2d 135 (Wyo. 1998), one 
of the issues the court was asked to decide was the very issue presented in this 
casewhether the right of a newly elected governing body to void existing 
contracts is subject to the Brodie rule requiring additional 
consideration when an implied for cause contract is modified to restore at-will 
employment.  The court decided 
Jewell on other grounds and, therefore, did not reach the issue.  However, in dictum the court suggested 
Mariano might not be applicable in the context of some implied for cause 
employment contracts:  "The language 
of Mariano allowing challenge of a contract that is not reasonably 
necessary or of definable advantage to a governing body is not likely to extend 
to an implied employment contract for hospital employees of a public 
hospital."  953 P.2d  at 138-39.

 
   

[¶10]   Turning to the certified question 
before us, we conclude Mariano does not support a blanket rule allowing 
newly constituted governing bodies to modify implied for cause employment 
contracts without providing additional consideration.  Rather, the question of whether a new 
governing body must provide additional consideration in order to modify an 
implied for cause employment contract to restore at-will status must be decided 
on a case-by-case basis according to the particular facts and circumstances 
presented.  Keabler and 
Jewell clearly leave open the possibility that an implied for cause 
employment contract is not voidable under Mariano where competent 
evidence is presented that the contract promotes a secure, stable, and loyal 
work force.  Where such competent 
evidence is presented, the contract is not voidable, and additional 
consideration is required to modify an implied contract to restore at-will 
status.

 
   
          
           

[¶11]   Therefore, in cases challenging a 
new governing body's modification of an implied employment contract to restore 
at-will status, the first question our courts must answer is whether, 
considering all the facts and circumstances presented, the employee has met his 
burden of showing the extended term of the implied for cause employment contract 
was justified by necessity or benefit to the government at the time the contract 
was made.  One such method of making 
this showing is by presenting competent evidence that the implied for cause 
employment contract promoted a stable, secure, and loyal work force.  If the employee meets that burden, the 
governing body cannot void the contract, and the usual rules of employment 
contract law apply, including the Brodie requirement that additional 
consideration must be provided when an employment contract is modified.  If the employee fails to meet that 
burden, however, the governing body can void the contract, and the Brodie 
requirement of additional consideration does not apply. 

            

CONCLUSION

  

[¶12]   We answer the certified question as 
follows:  The Brodie 
requirement of additional consideration does not apply when a newly elected 
governing body modifies personnel policies to restore at-will status and no 
adequate showing has been made that the for cause contract was reasonably 
necessary or of a definable advantage to the governing body when the contract 
was made.  If, however, an adequate 
showing is made that the implied for cause contract was reasonably necessary or 
of a definable advantage to the governing body when the contract was made, the 
contract cannot be voided under Mariano, the usual rules of employment contract law 
apply, and additional consideration is required when a newly elected governing 
body modifies the contract to restore at-will status.
      
           
         

FOOTNOTES

 

1After reviewing earlier Wyoming cases addressing the issue of a newly 
elected governing body's right to void contracts executed by its predecessor and 
extending into the new term, the Mariano court in essence disregarded 
those cases as having little precedential value, saying:  "Wyoming precedent . . . provides two 
political-economic result-oriented decisions, a two-to-two nonprecedential 
result, and a footnote in the most recent case.  We will view this case generally with a 
fresh perspective in contemplation of today's world."  737 P.2d  at 326.  We, therefore, do not consider the 
earlier cases in resolving the issue before us.