Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-08011/USCOURTS-ca10-90-08011-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

..... . 

, 

, FI L··.E D 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals 

T,..nth Ci!:r.Jtt 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

HOWARD R. FREIDEL, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant/ ) 

Cross-Appellee, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

INTERSTATE DIESEL PRODUCTS, ) 

INC., a Minnesota corporation, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellee/ ) 

Cross-Appellant. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

DEC 2 8 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-8003 & 

90-8011 

(D.C. No. 89-0012B) 

(D. Wyo.) 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR, and TACHA, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiff-appellant Howard Freidel appeals from the district 

court's award of a directed verdict in favor of defendant-appellee 

Interstate Diesel Products, Inc. on plaintiff's claim for damages 

for lost future vacation benefits. Defendant cross-appeals 

alleging the district court erred in holding defendant was 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-8011 Document: 010110097387 Date Filed: 12/28/1990 Page: 1 
precluded from adjudicating the issue of wrongful termination of 

employment because of a prior ruling of the Wyoming Employment 

Security Cononission. We affirm. 

Plaintiff was terminated by defendant for allegedly stealing 

from a customer. Plaintiff initially sought unemployment benefits 

from the Wyoming Employment Security Council (ESC). After 

defendant objected to a determination that plaintiff was not 

disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits, a telephone 

hearing was held at which all parties were given an opportunity to 

present witnesses and documentary evidence. The ESC determined 

plaintiff was entitled to unemployment benefits and specifically 

found plaintiff·was innocent of misconduct. 

· In January, 1989, plaintiff filed this action, alleging 

breach of employment contract, defamation, and willful and wanton 

misconduct justifying punitive damages. Prior to trial, the 

district court granted sunonary judgment for defendant on 

plaintiff's claims for defamation and punitive damages. It also 

held defendant was collaterally estopped from relitigating the 

issue of liability on the contract claim because that issue had 

been decided in the previous administrative proceeding. After a 

one-day jury trial, the court granted a directed verdict in favor 

of defendant on the issue of damages for lost future vacation 

benefits. The jury awarded a verdict for plaintiff in the amount 

of $5,000. 

In granting the directed verdict, the district court refused 

to allow damages for lost future vacation benefits. It said it 

was an improper claim, apparently accepting defendant's argument 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-8011 Document: 010110097387 Date Filed: 12/28/1990 Page: 2 
that it was subsumed in the calculation of the differences in 

compensation plaintiff earned before and after termination and was 

not a "fringe benefit," in the sense of the other fringe benefits 

recoverable under Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co. Y..!.. Smith, 637 

P.2d 1020 (Wyo. 1981). We review this decision under the de nova 

standard. Guifoyle Y..!.. Missouri, Kansas~ Texas R.R., 812 F.2d 

1290, 1292 (10th Cir. 1987). 

We have found no cases in which loss of future vacation 

benefits has been allowed as an element of damages in wrongful 

discharge situations. Lost future vacation benefits are 

qualitatively different from other fringe benefits such as life 

insurance, health insurance, and pension rights that would be 

compensable under Panhandle. Eastern. These fringe benefits 

involve costs the employer pays for the benefit of the employee 

which saves the employee from having to pay for them himself. 

Employers make payments for these benefits rather than paying 

higher wages to the employee and depending upon the employee to 

provide them for himself largely because the income tax code gives 

more favorable treatment to this method of compensating employees. 

With vacation benefits, however, the employee is paid for not 

working as a reward, in essence, for his work during the rest of 

the year. Seldom do employers permit employees to work the vacation time and be paid double. When the employee is wrongfully 

discharged, his recovery for lost compensation is paid to him 

without the requirement that he cont1nue to work. Thus, if he 

were to be paid for future employment benefits in addition to the 

compensation otherwise recoverable, it would appear he is 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-8011 Document: 010110097387 Date Filed: 12/28/1990 Page: 3 
' obtaining double recovery. We affirm the district court's refusal 

to permit the jury to separately consider loss of future vacation 

benefits in its calculation of damages. 

Defendant challenges the district court's ruling that the 

ESC's determination that plaintiff was innocent of misconduct 

precluded defendant from relitigating the issue of whether the 

employment contract had been breached. In reviewing a district 

court's grant of summary judgment, we apply a de novo standard of 

review to legal determinations. Wheeler Y.!.. Hurdman, 825 F.2d 257, 

260 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 986 (1987). Our view of 

the facts must indulge all reasonable inferences in favor of the 

party opposing the motion. Franks Y.!.. Nimmo, 796 F.2d 1230, 1235 

(10th Cir. 1986). 

As the district court discussed in its order, Wyoming 

case law concerning the collateral estoppal effect of ESC 

determinations co~tains apparently conflicting decisions. Compare 

Saltcreek Freightway Y..!. Wyoming Fair Employment Commission, 598 

P.2d 435, 437-40 (Wyo. 1979) and Joelson Y.!.. City of Casper, 676 

P.2d 570, 572 (Wyo. 1984) with Nelson Y.!.. Crimson Enterprises, Inc. 

777 P.2d 73, 78 (Wyo. 1989). We agree with the district court, 

however, that the more recent Nelson decision indicating ESC 

decisions have no collateral estoppal effect should not be 

controlling in this case. The issues raised in Nelson at the ESC 

hearing were not identical to the issues raised in the litigation. 

777 P.2d at 78. The court's discussion of the collateral estoppal 

effect of ESC decisions is therefore mere dicta. The court's 

statements in Nelson are also directly contrary to the holdings in 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-8011 Document: 010110097387 Date Filed: 12/28/1990 Page: 4 
# 

the two prior cases directly involving this issue, Saltcreek 

Freightway and Joelson. The court in Nelson failed to even 

mention these two cases. We conclude the district court did not 

err in relying on the express and unambiguous rule of Saltcreek 

Freightway and Joelson over the ambiguous dicta in Nelson in 

concluding defendant was estopped from relitigating the question 

of plaintiff's misconduct. 

We also conclude the district court properly found the 

standards for offensive use of collateral estoppel were met in 

this case. The record reveals the defendant had a strong 

incentive to litigate the issue of plaintiff's misconduct in the 

proceeding before the ESC and defendant was not deprived of any 

procedural opportunities during that proceeding. See Parklane 

Hosiei;:y Co. y Shore, 439 U.S. 322 (1979). We therefore AFFIRM the 

district court. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-5-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-8011 Document: 010110097387 Date Filed: 12/28/1990 Page: 5