Opinion ID: 2464470
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: There are genuine issues of material fact whether APT violated the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Text: Hoendermis argues that her termination violated the covenant of good faith and fair dealing because other employees who had committed much more egregious actions were not disciplined. APT argues that it did not violate the covenant of good faith and fair dealing because Hoendermis was not similarly situated with the other employees who were not disciplined. We must determine whether the superior court properly found that there were no genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment on Hoendermis's claim for violation of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. All at-will employment contracts are subject to the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. [39] [T]he covenant operates as a check on employers' traditional freedom to terminate at-will employment for any reason;. . . an employer may not terminate an at-will employee for reasons antithetical to the implied covenant. [40] The covenant contains both objective and subjective components. [41] An employer can breach either component. [42] The objective component of the covenant requires employers to act in a manner that a reasonable person would regard as fair. [43] This includes not unfairly treating similarly situated employees disparately; in other words, employers must treat like employees alike. [44] An employer breaches the subjective component of the covenant when it discharges an employee for the purpose of depriving him or her of one of the benefits of the contract. [45] APT presented a prima facie case supporting summary judgment. Hoendermis's original complaint asserted that APT breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, but did not allege specifically that APT did not treat like employees alike. Phelps stated in her affidavit in support of APT's motion for summary judgment that APT terminated Hoendermis because she was unable to work with others and refused to communicate with Phelps, her immediate superior. We have held that a party has presented a prima facie case supporting summary judgment on a breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim when a manager has stated in an affidavit that the employer terminated the employee for being unreliable. [46] Similarly here, Phelps's assertion that Hoendermis was terminated for an acceptable reason is enough to establish a prime facie case. We must next determine whether Hoendermis raised a genuine issue of material fact whether she was treated differently from similarly situated employees. In the context of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, similarly situated employees are those who are members of the same class, as defined by job position and the nature of the alleged misconduct. [47] Hoendermis was terminated for allegedly failing to get along with other employees. In Hoendermis's affidavit supporting her opposition to summary judgment, she described several other APT employees and their alleged misconduct: one massage therapist had a romantic relationship with a patient; an exercise therapist assaulted another employee at work; a physical therapist had an inappropriate social relationship with a patient; a clinical director may have violated Medicaid rules; and two receptionists exhibited unacceptable behavior at workone of whom required anger management counseling. In terms of job position, whether Hoendermis was similarly situated to any of these other employees is a question of fact, and the trier of fact will make that determination. At this stage, however, sufficient evidence exists in the record to successfully raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Hoendermis was similarly situated with other employees. Hoendermis must also raise a genuine issue of material fact whether she was treated differently from similarly situated employees in an unfair manner. In her affidavit, Hoendermis alleged that none of the employees discussed above were terminated. She asserted that Ms. Phelps did follow the disciplinary process with other employees at APT. Hoendermis's statement that she was terminated when others were not for similar or more severe offenses raises a genuine issue of material fact whether she was disparately treated in an unfair mannera violation of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Because Hoendermis raised a genuine issue of material fact that she was similarly situated to other APT employees and that she was unfairly treated in a different manner than those employees, we reverse the grant of summary judgment on the claim of breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.