Court Opinion

ID: 9569103
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:10:39.052993+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:48:57.327135
License: Public Domain

Beasley, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in Divisions 1, 3, and that part of Division 4 reversing summary judgment for shop foreman Lindley. However, the record does not establish as a matter of law that the sexual harassment was *486outside the scope of shop foreman/supervisor Lindley’s employment, so as to relieve employer Aleo of liability. Also, plant manager Crider was not entitled to summary judgment either, on the claim for tortious interference with the employment contract of plaintiff, an hourly laborer. In these regards, then, I respectfully dissent to Division 2 and the portions of Divisions 4 and 5 which conclude otherwise.
1. Division 2, scope of employment. Lindley’s alleged act of lying about the safety committee’s disapproval of a halter top was not outside the scope of his employment, as it was his duty to report employee violations to the plant manager, since he was shop foreman and the supervisor of employees such as plaintiff. It is the exercise of this duty which is the very subject of one of plaintiff’s complaints.
Secondly, when Lindley made the alleged sexual remarks and allegedly touched the employee, he was doing so in the capacity of an agent of the employer who has supervisory power and control over an hourly laborer, thus using the position Aleo placed him in to subject the employee to tort. This relationship of supervisor and laborer, which Lindley allegedly misused on the job, provided the opportunity and credentials and power to do and say what he allegedly did. What must be considered is the broad scope of the shop foreman’s duties, the inferior position of the laborer, and the master-servant relationship between the supervising shop foreman and the employer Aleo.
This is analogous to Miller v. Honea, 163 Ga. App. 421, 422 (294 SE2d 629) (1982), in that the record in this case does not establish as a matter of law that Lindley “had so deviated from his duties as to make his [torts] upon [Favors] a purely personal act.”
2. Division 4, tortious interference (OCGA § 51-9-1). Even if it is true that plant manager Crider had unconditional authority to discharge plaintiff insofar as employer Aleo was concerned, there is evidence that he exceeded the bounds imposed by law in the exercise of that authority. Crider’s own account is that plaintiff was fired because she called her attorney for advice after being told not to do so on company time, when she was confronted by him with what is allegedly a false report about her attire. As related in the majority opinion, this occurred several weeks after she complained to plant manager Crider about her supervisor’s sexual harassment.
The evidence outlined, and contained in the record, permits an inference that the ostensible cause of firing was pretextual and that the real reason was her more upsetting sexual complaint. Motive is not foreclosed from relevancy. See Energy Contractors v. Ga. Metal Systems &c. Engineering, 186 Ga. App. 475 (367 SE2d 324) (1988). If sexual discrimination was the basis, it exceeded lawful authority, for no one in this state may exercise a contractual right to fire “at will” in violation of a person’s right to equal protection of the laws. Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Par. II. At the very least, since Lindley was not *487fired for sexual harassment but was simply warned, Favors may not be fired for reporting it.1 Georgia Power Co. v. Busbin, 242 Ga. 612, 613 (2) (250 SE2d 442) (1978), recognized an “absolute right to discharge” but this was not in the context of alleged sexual discrimination.
Neither are these the circumstances in the case cited therein, McElroy v. Wilson, 143 Ga. App. 893, 894 (240 SE2d 155) (1977). McElroy, as a matter of fact, sets out the category into which this case falls: “where, even though the contract is terminable at will, a party with no authority to discharge the employee, being activated by an unlawful scheme or purpose to injure and damage him, maliciously and unlawfully persuades the employer to breach the contract with the employee.” The authority granted by Aleo to its plant manager could not exceed or supersede the law or run counter to it. “The fact that an employment is at the will of the employer and employee does not make it one at the will of others, and a malicious and wrongful interference with such employment by another is actionable although the employment be at will.” Ott v. Gandy, 66 Ga. App. 684 (1) (19 SE2d 180) (1942).
The recent case of Shaw v. W. M. Wrigley, Jr., Co., 183 Ga. App. 699, 700 (1) (359 SE2d 723) (1987), illustrates that an employee may indeed attack the motive for termination under certain circumstances designated by the law. That case involved handicap discrimination. It alluded to the similarity to cases “brought under Title VII, the federal provisions prohibiting discrimination in employment on the basis of race and sex.” Just because Title VII cases are brought in federal court does not mean that the prohibitions contained therein do not bind employers, or those exercising the power to discharge, with respect to at-will employment contracts.
“ ‘[T]he relation of master and servant gives rise to certain duties imposed by law independently of the express terms of the contract, . . . an action at tort will lie . . . [if] the discharge was accompanied by wrongful acts amounting to a trespass ‘The duty, for a
breach of which an action ex delicto lies, must be a duty imposed by law as to some relationship, general or special, as applied to that class of cases where the alleged duty arise out of a contract.’ ” Keys v. Enrichment Svcs., 183 Ga. App. 8, 10 (357 SE2d 852) (1987).
The duty not to violate the law in discharging an at-will employee renders the grant of summary judgment to plant manager Crider, under the evidence thus far developed, error. Whether he is personally liable remains a question of fact to be determined by the *488jury. American Game &c. Music Svc. v. Knighton, 178 Ga. App. 745, 746 (1) (344 SE2d 717) (1986).
Decided March 18, 1988.
S. Lee Storesund, for appellant.
R. Patrick White, Kurtis A. Powell, Lewis B. Gardner, for appellees.
I am authorized to state that Presiding Judge Banke, Judge Pope, and Judge Benham join in this opinion.

 OCGA § 45-19-29 (1) prohibits discrimination based on sex, in public employment. See Kilmark v. Bd. of Regents, 175 Ga. App. 857 (334 SE2d 890) (1985).