No. 92-007 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1992 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Ravalli, 

The Honorable Jack L. Green, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

Julio K. Morales; Morales Law Office, 

Missoula, Montana. 

For Respondent: 

John 0. Mudd; Garlington, Lohn & Robinson, 

Missoula, Montana. 

Filed: 

Submitted on Briefs: April 2, 1992 

Decided: May 7, 1992 

Clerk 
Justice Fred J. Weber delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

Plaintiff, Yvonne Miller, brought a wrongful discharge action 

against her employer, Citizens State Bank (Bank), in the Fourth 

Judicial District Court, Ravalli County, Montana. The court 

entered judgment in favor of the Bank. Ms. Miller appeals. We 

affirm. 

The issues for review are restated as follows: 

1. Did the Bank terminate Ms. Miller for good cause as 

required by § 39-2-904(2), MCA? 

2. Did the Bank comply with § 39-2-904(3), MCA, by following 

the express provisions of its personnel policy when it terminated 

Ms. Miller? 

The District Court made the following findings. Ms. Miller 

became a fuf l time employee of the Bank in 1956. In 1989, Ms. 

Miller was involuntarily terminated from her position as operations 

officer. Ms. Miller had held the position of operations officer 

for ten years prior to her discharge. U. C. Hollingsworth, 

president of the Bank from 1937 through 1987, testified by 

deposition that plaintiff was a good and enthusiastic worker. 

Earle Wright, plaintiff's supervisor prior to 2987, testified that 

during his tenure, the Bank had no cause to terminate Ms. Miller. 

In 1987, the Bank hired Samuel R. Noel, who later assumed the 

position of bank president. Mr. Noel implemented changes designed 

to facilitate demands from regulatory agencies and accommodate 

changes in the economic climate. The court found Ms. Miller was 

aware of the requirements of her position, yet she failed to 
perform important tasks or did not complete tasks in a timely 

manner. The court noted that Mr. Noel was a difficult supervisor. 

However, it also found Ms. Miller "bucked the systemw thus 

straining the working relationship between herself and Mr. Noel. 

The District Court found that in addition to a below standard 

written performance appraisal, on at least three occasions Mr. Noel 

warned Ms. Miller of potential termination unless her job 

performance improved. Despite these warnings and indicators, Ms. 

Miller delayed completing tasks and resisted changes implemented by 

Mr. Noel. As a result, Ms. Miller was terminated. 

The District Court found the Bank followed the express written 

provisions of its personnel policies in terminating Ms. Miller. It 

further concluded the Bank did not wrongfully discharge Ms. Miller. 

Plaintiff appeals this judgment, arguing she was wrongfully 

terminated under § 39-2-904, MCA, which prohibits employers from 

discharging employees without cause and in violation of the 

employer's written personnel policies. 

I 

Did the Bank terminate Ms. Miller for good cause as required 

by 5 39-2-904 (2), MCA? 

Ms. Miller contends she was wrongfully discharged because the 

Bank terminated her without good cause. Plaintiff encourages this 

Court to adopt a new standard of "good causeu based upon whether 

the employee satisfied the general obligations of an employee 

described in !j 39-2-401, MCA, whether the employer followed 

industry standards of progressive discipline, and whether the 

defendant exercised bad faith. 

3 
Y 

In light of the statutory definition adopted by the 

legislature, we conclude that it is inappropriate to apply the 

standard advanced by Ms. Miller. Section 39-2-904, MCA, states in 

part: I1A discharge is wrongful only if . . . (2) the discharge was 

not for good cause . . .I1 Section 39-2-903(5), MCA, defines good 

cause as: flreasonable job-related grounds for dismissal based on 

a failure to satisfactorily perform job duties, disruption of the 

employer's operation, or other legitimate business reason.I1 

Based on its extensive findings, including those that Ms. 

Miller failed to implement new procedures and delayed completing 

tasks, the District Court concluded plaintiff was terminated for 

failure to satisfactorily perform her job duties. Thus, it held 

Ms. Miller was terminated for good cause based on reasonable jobrelated grounds as defined by § 39-2-903(5), MCA, 

Under Rule 52 (a) , M.R. Civ. P., the District Court Is findings of 

fact will not be disturbed on appeal unless they are clearly 

erroneous. Trad Indus. Ltd. v. Brogan (1991), 246 Mont. 439, 447, 

805 P.2d 54, 59. Here, Ms. Miller failed to show the lower court's 

findings were clearly erroneous. Accordingly, we conclude Ms. 

Miller's termination was based on reasonable job related grounds. 

We hold the Bank terminated Ms. Miller for good cause as 

required by 5 39-2-904(2), MCA. 

I1 

Did the Bank comply with 3 39-2-904(3), MCA by following the 

express provisions of its personnel policy when it terminated Ms. 

Miller? 

Ms. Miller contends the Bank failed to provide her with a 
. , 

formal warning; thus, she was terminated in violation of the Bank's 

personnel policy. section 39-2-904 (3), MCA, states in part: "A 

discharge is wrongful only if . . . (3) the employer violated the 

express provisions of its own written personnel policy." Here the 

District Court specifically found that Mr. Noel warned Ms. Miller 

that her continued substandard performance would result in 

dismissal. It further found that the Bank followed the express 

written provisions of its personnel policies when it terminated Ms. 

Miller. 

As previously stated, the standard of review for the lower 

court's findings of fact, in a civil action, is whether or not the 

findings are clearly erroneous. Trad Indus. Ltd., 246 Mont. at 

447, 805 P.2d at 59. In reviewing the record, we conclude that Ms. 

Miller failed to prove these findings were clearly erroneous. We 

hold the Bank complied with g 39-2-904(3), MCA, and followed the 

provisions of its personnel policy when it terminated Ms. Miller. 

Affirmed. 

We Concur: 
May 7, 1992 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the following order was sent by United States mail, prepaid, to the 

following named: 

Julio K. Morales 

MORALES LAW OFFICE 

P.O. Box 9311 

Missoula. MT 59807 

John 0. Mudd 

GARLINGTON, LOHN & ROBINSON 

P.O. Box 7909 

Missoula, MT 59807 

ED SMITH 

CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT 

STATE OF MONTANA