Opinion ID: 2615021
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Just Cause/Breach of Contract

Text: The City first addresses its liability for breach of contract. It claims that the Court of Appeals did not properly decide the just cause issue under Baldwin v. Sisters of Providence. [51] In its opinion, the court stated that Baldwin does not support Ocean Shores's argument that just cause is any cause that the employer in good faith believes is just. Baldwin involved a private employment contract in which just cause was not specifically defined. The Supreme Court, therefore, was required to formulate a definition. [52] While the Court of Appeals correctly observed that Baldwin was a private employment case, it was not correct in observing that a definition of just cause did not exist in the policy manual in that case. [53] This court in Baldwin observed that just cause [I]s a fair and honest cause or reason, regulated by good faith on the part of the party exercising the power. We further hold a discharge for just cause is one which is not for any arbitrary, capricious, or illegal reason and which is based on facts (1) supported by substantial evidence and (2) reasonably believed by the employer to be true.[ [54] ] The City cites Gaglidari v. Denny's Restaurants, Inc., [55] to support its claim that the Baldwin standard is not a definition of just cause, but rather a method for determining it. The City claims the court used the standard to determine if at the time plaintiff was dismissed defendant reasonably, in good faith, and based on substantial evidence believed plaintiff had engaged in a fight. [56] Thus, the City claims, this court did not inquire whether fighting was just cause for dismissal, but rather whether the employer legitimately relied on that cause. The Court of Appeals construed the City's argument to mean that any cause the employer relied on in good faith would be just cause. The City actually argued that under its municipal code all appointed employees are subject to discipline, including dismissal for cause, which includes conviction of a crime. [57] Here Respondent was convicted of a crime. The City claims that at the time he was dismissed from employment, based on substantial evidence, it reasonably and in good faith believed he had been convicted. Therefore, the City asserts, it had just cause to dismiss Respondent under its own ordinance and under the Baldwin standard. [1] The Court of Appeals also stated that Baldwin did not apply here because it was a private employment case. The City has not provided any authority applying the Baldwin method of determining just cause to dismissal in a public employment case. Even if the Baldwin standard is not applicable to this case, as concluded by the Court of Appeals, the City may rely on its own ordinance for determination of just cause.