Court Opinion

ID: 9854044
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:59:40.718482+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:53.311630
License: Public Domain

GOLDEN, Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which URBIGKIT, J., joins.
Although I concur in most aspects of the majority opinion, I dissent from that part of it that holds that “the public policy exception to the employment-at-will doctrine [does] not apply to the termination of employment contracts between school districts and initial contract teachers.”
This court identified the rationale supporting the public policy exception to the at-will rule in Allen v. Safeway Stores, Incorporated, 699 P.2d 277, 284 (Wyo.1985):
A tort action premised on violation of public policy results from a recognition that allowing a discharge to go unre-dressed would leave a valuable social policy to go unvindicated.
As it was so aptly put by the Arizona Supreme Court in Wagner v. City of Globe, 150 Ariz. 82, 722 P.2d 250, 255-56 (1986),
[ejmployees should not have to choose between their jobs and the demands of important public policy interests * * *. [Ejmployees should not be discharged because they performed an act that public policy would encourage * * *.
A fundamental principle of Wyoming’s public policy is our commitment to protect children from abuse or neglect. If a school district can decide not to renew a school counselor's employment contract based in substantial part on that counselor’s fulfilling a statutory obligation of reporting suspected child abuse and neglect and of cooperating with law enforcement authorities and child protection agencies, then very soon that school counselor will stop reporting and cooperating. The unacceptable end result is that child abuse and neglect will go unreported and children will continue to be harmed.
Wyoming’s clearly defined and well-established public policy concerning child *1124abuse finds expression in W.S. 14-3-104 through 215 (July 1986 Repl.)- In particular, § 14-3-205(a) provides that any person who has reasonable cause to suspect that a child has been abused or neglected shall immediately report it to the child protection agency or local law enforcement agency. Under § 14-3-205(b), if a staff member of a school suspects child abuse or neglect, that staff member shall notify as soon as possible a person in charge who is also responsible to report the matter. But the reporting staff member is not relieved of his or her obligation to report in the first instance. Under § 14-3-212, the creation of multi-disciplinary child protection teams within the communities in the state is encouraged. Among the members of that team is a designated representative from the school district. The local child protection teams are to facilitate diagnosis and prognosis and provide an adequate treatment plan for the child and the child’s family. Under § 14-3-214, a child counsel- or employed by the school may attend interviews of a child that are conducted on school property by law enforcement personnel or child protective agency personnel.
School counselors and teachers in particular are serving in the trenches in our society’s war against child abuse. Any chilling of that obligation to report and cooperate cannot be tolerated. Our children are much too precious and valuable a resource to be sacrificed in the name of the “at-will” doctrine. We have recognized and adopted a public policy exception for the worker who files a worker’s compensation claim. Griess v. Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware, 776 P.2d 752 (Wyo.1989). This court surely has the courage to recognize and adopt a public policy exception which will inure to the benefit of abused and neglected children.
Keeping this public policy in mind, our fidelity to the bedrock principles of summary judgment law requires us to examine the record in the light most favorable to Ms. Leonard, the party against whom the summary judgment was entered, and give her the benefit of all favorable inferences which reasonably can be drawn from the record evidence.
The record evidence surrounding the reasons for principal Dodd’s recommendation that Ms. Leonard’s employment contract not be renewed shows the following:
1. Leonard’s deposition testimony:
• “And Mr. Dodd * * * said to me, something about don’t discover any more incest cases, and he kind of laughed. And I guess I had a little difficulty with that. I didn’t think it was very funny. * * * I felt that he really meant it * * *.”
2. Dodd’s deposition testimony:
• When asked if he intended that Ms. Leonard should not work with incest and abuse matters and alcoholic parents, Dodd testified, “It would be my intent that [she] recognize the limit to which a school counselor can do that and still do the normal things * *
• When asked if she did more for abused children than Dodd wanted her to do, Dodd testified, “I would have to say in terms of the total context of the job she spent more time with them than could be provided within the school setting at the expense of the other group of students.”
• When asked if the special cases were taking more time than Dodd felt she could afford as a counselor, Dodd answered, “Unfortunately, yes.”
• Against the backdrop of the amount of time involved in reporting abuse cases and in cooperating with investigations by the law enforcement authorities in such cases, Dodd testified, “For the way all of this impacted upon the total school program, it was my professional judgment that too much time was being spent there.”
3. Assistant school superintendent Hoyt’s deposition testimony:
• In early March, Hoyt asked Dodd to explain why he did not recommend Ms. Leonard for renewal of her contract. Hoyt testified, “If I can recall his phrasing, there was a lack of balance between dealing with those more severe cases and what he perceived as *1125being her major responsibility as far as a school counselor was concerned.”
• According to Hoyt, Dodd’s reasons for his nonrenewal recommendation were her need to listen, her rapport with other staff members, and the “balance.”
After reviewing the record and evidence in the light most favorable to school counselor Leonard and being of the view that Wyoming has a clearly defined and well-established public policy regarding the reporting of child abuse and neglect and of cooperating with the authorities in such matters, I find that genuine issues of material fact exist concerning the school district’s reasons for failing to renew Ms. Leonard’s contract. I would reverse and remand for a jury trial on that issue.