Title: Rennie v. State

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Rennie v. State (99-089); 171 Vt. 584; 762 A.2d 1272

[Filed 23-Oct-2000]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 99-089

                               JUNE TERM, 2000

Judith G. and Robert Rennie	       }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
     v.	                               }	Windham Superior Court
                                       }	
                                       }
State of Vermont, et al.	       }	DOCKET NO. 220-5-95 Wmcv

                                                Trial Judge: John P. Wesley  

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Plaintiffs Judith and Robert Rennie appeal from a summary judgment of
  the Windham  Superior Court in favor of defendants, the State of Vermont
  and three State employees.  Plaintiffs  contend the trial court
  erroneously: (1) dismissed her wrongful discharge claim on the ground that 
  Rennie had failed to exhaust her administrative remedies; and (2) dismissed
  her other claims as time  barred. We affirm.

       Rennie worked for the Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services
  from June 25, 1990,  until she left her position for medical reasons on
  April 15, 1992.  The following May, Rennie filed a  grievance with the
  Labor Relations Board, alleging that the Department had violated provisions
  of  the collective bargaining agreement, rendered an unsatisfactory
  performance evaluation without just  cause, bypassed progressive corrective
  action, failed to provide adequate notice of performance  deficiencies and
  opportunity to remediate, changed standards of performance, and misused the 
  process of corrective action. The complaint further alleged that the
  Department had violated the  agreement by subjecting her to a campaign of
  harassment in retaliation for her grievances and refusal  to resign her
  position voluntarily. Rennie sought removal and destruction of the
  evaluation and a  cease and desist order.  On June 1, 1992, shortly after
  filing the grievance, Rennie formally resigned  her position.  

       At a hearing on the grievance before the Board in December 1992,  the
  State agreed to remove  and destroy the adverse performance evaluation, and
  moved for dismissal and/or summary judgment.  Rennie thereupon moved to
  amend her grievance to assert a claim for wrongful constructive  discharge. 
  The Board denied the motion to amend, and granted the State's motion to
  dismiss.  No  appeal was taken from the Board's decision.

       On May 31, 1995, Rennie and her husband filed a complaint against
  defendants in superior 

 

  court, alleging wrongful constructive discharge, tortious interference with
  contract, violation of the  Vermont Fair Employment Practices Act under 21
  V.S.A. § 495, intentional infliction of emotional  distress, violation of
  her civil rights actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,  loss of consortium,
  and  "prima facie tort."   The court granted the State's unopposed motion
  for summary judgment, ruling  that Rennie  had failed to exhaust
  administrative remedies on Count I (wrongful discharge), and had   failed
  to file the complaint within the three-year statute of limitations
  applicable to the remaining  claims. This appeal followed.

       We review a motion for summary judgment using the same standard as the
  trial court.  See   Hodgdon v. Mt. Mansfield Co., 160 Vt. 150, 158,