Opinion ID: 880343
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Appellant's Burden

Text: Appellant argues that the laudatory remarks in her three National American Cancer Society memos constitute objective manifestations of job security sufficient to overcome a motion for summary judgment. We do not agree. Objective manifestations of job security must come from the employer. In Dare we specifically stated manifestations by the employer could imply the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Dare, 212 Mont. at 282, 687 P.2d at 1020. (Emphasis added.) The employer's position is pivotal in the employment relationship. The employer has the exclusive right to hire and fire. The employer is responsible for the employee's performance and is in the best position to evaluate it. The employer has the power to rebuke or reward the employee and is the only one with the power to create job security. As in the present case, compliments from those who are not the employer may be based on incomplete or inaccurate information by persons who are not accountable to the employee. Representative Nenno and Coordinator Davis praised Karell's work on specific projects in which they were involved. They may have been unaware that Karell's immediate supervisor, Stan Wieczorek, who held responsibility for her work and continued employment, had repeatedly complained about her performance. We agree with the District Court that these non-employer comments do not support an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The appellant argues that a conversation with Wieczorek during a ski trip in December of 1986 also supports her belief that her position with ACS was secure. Karell alleges that Wieczorek stated that she had a wonderful future with the American Cancer Society and ... could go anywhere in the organization. To overcome a motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party's evidence must be substantial and material. Benson v. Diehl (Mont. 1987), 745 P.2d 315, 316, 44 St.Rep. 1455, 1456. Occasional compliments by an employer are not sufficient to establish a reasonable expectation of job security. The appellant also argues that she reasonably believed she had job security because Wieczorek did not warn her that her employment was in jeopardy. Such warnings are not mandatory, but may be considered along with other evidence of objective manifestations of job security. Rupnow v. City of Polson (Mont. 1988), 761 P.2d 802, 805, 45 St.Rep. 1734, 1739. The appellant's evidence is distilled to one compliment from her employer and the fact that he did not threaten to fire her before doing so. Karell has established no substantial facts which demonstrate a genuine issue as to whether she had a reasonable expectation of job security. The District Court correctly held that no implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing occurred in this employment relationship. We affirm its summary judgment.