Opinion ID: 1443854
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: hummer is entitled to contract damages for the wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

Text: In Jackson, 98 Idaho at 334, 563 P.2d at 58, this Court indicated that employment at will constitutes a contract. The Jackson Court relied upon Monge v. Beebe Rubber Co., 114 N.H. 130, 316 A.2d 549 (1974), in which the New Hampshire court recognized the cause of action for discharge in violation of public policy as a breach of the employment contract. Inherent in the Monge court's decision is the conclusion that all employees are subject to employment contracts, whether at will or for a definite term. 316 A.2d at 551. In Jackson this Court also referred to a contract of employment at will, which exemplifies this Court's intent to classify a cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy as a breach of contract rather than a tort. 98 Idaho at 334, 563 P.2d at 58. All employment contracts terminable at will are subject to the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Metcalf v. Intermountain Gas Co., 116 Idaho 622, 778 P.2d 744 (1989). A breach of the covenant is a breach of the employment contract, and is not a tort. The potential recovery results in contract damages, not tort damages. Id. at 626, 778 P.2d at 748. Similarly, a cause of action for wrongful termination of a contract of employment at will based on a violation of public policy is a contract cause of action which results in contract damages. Front pay, as future lost wages, is not too speculative as a matter of law to be awarded as an element of damages. O'Dell v. Basabe, 119 Idaho at 812, 810 P.2d at 1098. The fact that contract damages are not capable of exact proof does not preclude their availability as a matter of law. The rule is that the measure of damages is such as will compensate for the loss suffered as the result of a breach of contract. Id. Damages relating to lost future benefits must be proven with reasonable certainty: Where a claim is asserted for the recovery of future benefits, the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to prove with reasonable certainty the amount of the loss caused by the conduct of the defendant. In the context of an employment contract for an indefinite term, a plaintiff might resort to evidence such as employment history to show likelihood of future employment. Id. Hummer is entitled to contract damages based on the Department's wrongful termination of her in violation of public policy. She is entitled to the initial award of $10,349.71, which is the amount of salary and benefits she would have received through the ending date set forth in her letter of employmentJune 29, 1992. A deprivation of that amount of salary and benefits has been shown with reasonable certainty. O'Dell, 119 Idaho at 812, 810 P.2d at 1098. Hummer has not proven with reasonable certainty that her employment with the Department would continue beyond the ending date set forth in the letter of appointment. The record adequately shows and the district court recognized that Hummer would not have had her contract renewed based on various public relations difficulties. Hence, Hummer has not shown a likelihood of future employment with the Department. Id. The fact that she had not found commensurate employment as of the date of the hearing on the additur does not establish a basis for the additur. Consequently, the district court's award of additional damages of $46,551.38 is reversed.