Opinion ID: 1229632
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the trial court correctly granted summary judgment dismissing farnworth's breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim.

Text: Farnworth asserts that the trial court should not have granted summary judgment dismissing his breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim. We disagree. Farnworth relies on Sorensen v. Comm Tek, Inc., 118 Idaho 664, 799 P.2d 70 (1990), for the application of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing to employment at will. In Sorensen, the Court adopted the plurality opinion in Metcalf v. Intermountain Gas Co., 116 Idaho 622, 778 P.2d 744 (1989), which announced this application of the covenant. Sorensen, 118 Idaho at 669, 799 P.2d at 75. The plurality opinion in Metcalf applied the covenant prospectively to breaches or violations of the covenant occurring after the effective date of [the Metcalf ] opinion, and to the claims in [ Metcalf ]. Metcalf, 116 Idaho at 628, 778 P.2d at 750. In Sorensen, the Court concluded that the Metcalf opinion should be applied to all cases which had been filed at the time that the Metcalf opinion was issued on August 8, 1989. Sorensen, 118 Idaho at 669, 799 P.2d at 75. Farnworth amended his complaint on May 21, 1990, adding a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. This claim related back to March 7, 1989, the date Farnworth filed the original complaint. I.R.C.P. 15(c). Therefore, Farnworth is entitled to the application of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing developed by the plurality in Metcalf and reaffirmed by the Court in Sorensen. Farnworth contends that the county and Femling breached the covenant when they terminated his permanent employment without good cause. This application of the covenant was rejected in Metcalf, when two justices agreed with the following statement of the Arizona Supreme Court in Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Memorial Hosp., 147 Ariz. 370, 385-86, 710 P.2d 1025, 1040-41 (1985) (en banc): We ... recognize an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the employment-at-will contract, although that covenant does not create a duty for the employer to terminate the employee only for good cause. The covenant does not protect the employee from a no cause termination because tenure was never a benefit inherent in the at-will agreement. Metcalf, 116 Idaho at 627, 778 P.2d at 749. By the adoption in Sorensen of the plurality opinion in Metcalf, the Court included this limitation on the application of the covenant. This forecloses Farnworth's suggested application of the covenant in this case.