Court Opinion

ID: 9728518
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:10:04.392373+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:49.363863
License: Public Domain

STATON, Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent from the Majority Opinion and would affirm the trial court for the following reasons:
1. Here we are dealing with a written employment contract which is in contrast with the employee at will eases cited by the Majority.
2. The Majority defines and interprets the slang phrase “put Wright under” as an obvious threat to kill with total disregard of the circumstances under which the slang expression was used. As Justice Holmes emphasized in Towne v. Eisner: “A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged, it is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in color and content according to the circumstances and the time in which it is used.” 245 U.S. 418, 425, 38 S.Ct. 158, 159, 62 L.Ed. 372 (1918) (citing Lamar v. United States, 240 U.S. 60, 65, 36 S.Ct. 255, 256-57, 60 L.Ed. 526 (1916)). McQueary had twice sought the assistance of the transportation supervisor, McDorman, to remedy the hazardous situation caused by Wright exposing children to danger in leaving them off in front of McQueary’s bus. When Wright confronted McQueary about complaining to the supervisor, McQueary again sought the assistance of the supervisor, McDorman, by going to the supervisor’s office to register his displeasure with Wright’s conduct. MeQueary’s conduct of seeking the assistance of the transportation supervisor can hardly be interpreted as a threat to kill. His conduct was not threatening, it was an attempt to peaceably seek help through administrative channels. In his attempt to express his displeasure with Wright, McQueary used a slang expression for which none of the American dictionaries have an available definition. DICTIONARY of Slang and Unoonventional English (5th ed.1961). Before the subjective intent of a declarant is given an interpretative meaning, the surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the declarant must be taken into account. McQueary’s expression “put Wright under” was merely an expression of desperation with the contentious conduct of Wright who had instructed McQueary to come directly to him rather than the transportation supervisor. It was Wright who was spoiling McQueary’s attempts at a peaceable settlement. It was Wright who demanded that McQueary see him in the future rather than complain to the supervisor. Yet, the Majority interprets MeQueary’s words as a threat to kill — a conclusion that cannot stand under the circumstances.
3.Even if the authority cited by the Majority did not concern employees *1309at will as previously observed, the expressions at issue in those cases are much easier to interpret. For example, in Stoner v. Review Bd. of Indiana, 571 N.E.2d 296 (Ind.1991), the regional manager, purposely in a loud voice so that the other employees could hear his remark, stated that CD was a “slut” and that she would “slut around on company time.” A “slut” is defined by Webster’s Dictionary (1992) as “a woman of loose character; hussy.” The circumstances and timing of the remarks leave little doubt as to the intent and purpose of the regional manager. It was to humiliate and slander. Another example cited by the Majority is Yoldash v. Review Bd. of Ind. Emp. Sec. Div., 438 N.E.2d 310 (Ind.Ct.App.1982). Yoldash called the managing engineer a “communist” and a “fascist,” two terms definable by authority available to everyone. Additionally, Yoldash called the maintenance foreman a drunk, which is commonly defined as a person who is an alcoholic. These are widely used terms well known to most persons. A refined definition is readily available for those persons who wish to inquire. Here again the circumstances and timing add to the meaning. Yoldash had been suspended for three days for helping his supervisor turn off a valve while the supervisor received only one day suspension. Yoldash felt that he had been treated unfairly. Likewise, in Reynolds v. Daniels, 1 Ark.App. 262, 614 S.W.2d 525 (1981), an Arkansas case cited by the Majority, an employee at will used the term “bitch.” Webster defines a “bitch” as follows: “Slang wench; hussy; an abusive epithet, often implying lewdness. — v.i. Slang to complain; — to bitch up, Slang to botch.” The circumstances here as well as the timing add additional meaning to the expression.3
I would affirm the trial court for the above reasons. McQueary’s subjective intent is a question of fact that must be determined by the fact finder — not by the court of appeals. The trial court was correct in denying the motion for summary judgment and should be affirmed.

. The term "son of a bitch” has other meanings as well. It may be abusive or affectionate when used to address a person. It can often be used to describe something difficult or a difficult person. For example: It is an oil field term for an emergency car for escaping from a derrick. Berrey and Van Den Bark, The American Thesaurus op Slang 488 (1942); Hog’s back son of a bitch is boiled salt codfish covered with scraps of pork. Went-worth, American Dialect Dictionary 579 (1945). Son-of-bitch stew is a favorite cowboy dish made of brains, sweetbreads and choice pieces of freshly killed calf. Adams, Western Words 149 (1945).