Title: Haverly v. Kaytec, Inc.

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Haverly v. Kaytec, Inc. (96-430); 169 Vt. 350; 738 A.2d 86

[Filed 18-Jun-1999]

       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. 96-430

Philip Haverly	                                  Supreme Court

                                                  On Appeal from
     v.		                                  Franklin Superior Court

Kaytec, Inc.	                                  December Term, 1997

Linda Levitt, J.

       Catherine Roberts-Suskin of Suskin & Roberts-Suskin, P.C. for
  Plaintiff-Appellant.

       Mark H. Scribner of Carroll & Scribner, Burlington, for
  Defendant-Appellee.

       Brooke Pearson, Montpelier for Amicus Curiae Department of Employment
  and Training.

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

       SKOGLUND, J.  Plaintiff Philip Haverly appeals from a jury verdict for
  defendant  Kaytec, Inc., claiming that the court erred by (1) admitting in
  evidence a statement made by him  in an application for unemployment
  benefits, (2) denying a motion to amend his negligent  supervision
  complaint, and (3) granting defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of
  law on  plaintiff's negligent supervision claim.  We affirm.

       In April 1992, defendant hired plaintiff to work as an electrician's
  assistant in its Richford  facility.  Soon after starting the job,
  plaintiff complained to management about vapors and noise  levels in the
  plant and subsequently filed a complaint with the Vermont Occupational
  Safety and  Health Office (VOSHA).  VOSHA sent an investigator, who
  discovered violations of its  regulations.  After the VOSHA inspection,
  plaintiff claimed that in retaliation for filing the  complaint, his
  co-workers and supervisors began to harass, intimidate, and threaten him,
  and that  these incidents frightened him to such an extent that he could no
  longer work for Kaytec.  

 

  He left his job in October 1992.

       Plaintiff filed this suit in October 1994, alleging he was
  constructively discharged in  retaliation for calling VOSHA.  Plaintiff
  pleaded two claims for recovery: (1) Kaytec violated 21  V.S.A. § 231 by
  discriminating and retaliating against him for complaining about work place 
  health and safety regulations, and (2) Kaytec negligently failed to prevent
  its employees from  violating 21 V.S.A. § 231.

                                     I.

       Plaintiff first argues that the court violated 21 V.S.A. § 1314(d)(1)
  by admitting into  evidence a statement made by him to the Vermont
  Department of Employment and Training a year  after he left Kaytec.  The
  statement was made in support of an application for unemployment  benefits
  from his subsequent employer, Electronic Hospital.  In the statement,
  plaintiff referred  to his job at Kaytec as a "good paying and secure job
  with . . . many benefits."  Plaintiff claims  that the statement was a
  privileged communication under the statute, and was therefore 
  inadmissible.

       Section 1314(d)(1) provides in relevant part:

     Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, information obtained from 
     any employing unit or individual in the administration of this chapter, 
     and determinations as to the benefit rights of any individual shall be 
     held confidential and shall not be disclosed or open to public inspection
     in any manner revealing the individual's or employing unit's identity, 
     nor be admissible in evidence in any action or proceeding other than one
     arising out of this chapter. . . .

  21 V.S.A. § 1314(d)(1) (emphasis added).  The purpose behind this section
  is to encourage full,  free and honest reporting to the Vermont Department
  of Employment and Training by protecting  the identities and statements of
  both employers and employees.  Cf. Hinojosa v. Joslyn Corp., 635 N.E.2d 546, 547 (Ill. App. 1994) (state laws prohibiting disclosure of
  unemployment  compensation are meant to advance the administration of
  unemployment compensation laws by  encouraging complete and accurate
  reporting from claimants and their employers); Simpson v. Oil  Transfer
  Corp.,