Title: Havill v. Woodstock Soapstone Co.

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Havill v. Woodstock Soapstone Co. (99-516); 172 Vt. 625; 783 A.2d 423

[Filed 18-Sep-2001]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 1999-516

                               MAY TERM, 2001

Lois Havill	                       }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
     v.	                               }	Windsor Superior Court
                                       }	
Woodstock Soapstone Company	       }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. 147-3-98 Wrcv

                                                Trial Judge: Richard W. Norton

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

       Plaintiff Lois Havill appeals from a grant of summary judgment in
  favor of employer  Woodstock Soapstone Company, Inc., on her breach of
  contract claim.  Plaintiff contends that  employer's personnel policies
  entitled her to continued employment absent just cause and that   genuine
  issues of material fact exist regarding whether employer's reorganization
  was just cause for  her termination.  Employer cross-appeals from the
  court's denial of its motion to dismiss for lack of  personal jurisdiction,
  arguing that its contacts with Vermont were insufficient to allow
  jurisdiction  over it in a Vermont court.  Concluding that employer had
  sufficient minimum contacts with  Vermont, we affirm the denial of
  employer's motion to dismiss.  We reverse the grant of summary  judgment in
  favor of employer because genuine issues of material fact exist on whether
  the personnel  policies modified the at-will relationship and whether
  employer reorganized and eliminated  plaintiff's position.

       Employer manufactures wood burning stoves at its sole place of
  business in West Lebanon,  New Hampshire.  Plaintiff began working for
  employer on a part-time basis in 1982, when the  company was incorporated
  in Vermont.  Employer then moved its business to New Hampshire where  it
  was incorporated in 1985.  Plaintiff was terminated in 1987, and asked to
  return on a part-time  basis in 1990.  In 1994, she became a full-time
  customer service representative. Her duties included  entering data,
  processing orders, preparing informational packets and videos, assisting
  customers on  the phone and in the showroom, and general office work.  

       In 1994, employer distributed to plaintiff and all employees its
  Corporate Personnel Policies,  which were "intended to encourage mutual
  understanding, respect and cooperation."  The policies  declare that "[t]he
  interest and loyalty of every employee is needed to maintain and improve
  our  competitive market position, assure financial stability for the
  company, and job security for each  employee."  The policies provide that
  dealings with employees will be fair, open, and impartial, and 

 

  that "[s]teady employment will be provided for the greatest number of
  employees for the longest  possible period, depending on the amount and
  character of business which can be obtained."  Also  included are
  procedures for termination of employees and progressive discipline.  Absent
  from the  policies is any attempt by employer to limit or disclaim the
  creation of contractual liability arising  therefrom.

       On November 10, 1997, employer terminated plaintiff, claiming lack of
  work and that her  position had been eliminated.  Plaintiff filed a
  complaint alleging breach of her employment contract,  and later amended
  the complaint to include counts for intentional and negligent
  misrepresentation.  Before filing its answer, employer filed a motion to
  dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.  The  court denied employer's
  motion, reasoning that employer had purposefully directed activity toward 
  residents of Vermont in soliciting job applicants generally and plaintiff
  specifically, and that the  litigation arose out of that activity. 
  Employer moved the court to reconsider its decision or in the  alternative
  for permission to appeal pursuant to V.R.A.P. 5(b)(1).  Although modifying
  its decision  to base it on undisputed facts, the court denied employer's
  motion to dismiss and motion to appeal.

       After an opportunity for discovery, both parties moved for summary
  judgment on the breach of  contract claim.  The court granted employer's
  motion and denied plaintiff's, concluding that  employer's personnel
  policies did not alter plaintiff's  at-will employment status.  The court
  also held  that even if the policies did modify the employment agreement to
  require good cause for termination,  the elimination of plaintiff's
  position in the company reorganization constituted good cause about   which
  there were no disputed issues of fact.  Plaintiff moved the court to
  reconsider its decision and  to appeal, both of which the court denied. 
  Employer filed a motion to dismiss the two remaining  counts, intentional
  and negligent misrepresentation, which the court denied. The court granted 
  plaintiff's motion to dismiss these two counts without prejudice. 
  Plaintiff and employer both appeal.

                     I. Employer's jurisdictional claim

       Employer appeals the denial of its motion to dismiss for lack of
  personal jurisdiction.   Vermont's long arm statute, 12 V.S.A. § 913(b),
  confers "jurisdiction over nonresident defendants to  the full extent
  permitted by the Due Process Clause."  Dall v. Kaylor, 163 Vt. 274, 275,