Court Opinion

ID: 9667636
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:51:09.487036+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:39.439732
License: Public Domain

Robert L. Brown, Justice, dissenting. There was no evidence of pretextual deceit in this case. The circumstances adduced by the majority to support fraud are these: 1. Houser had a good reputation. 2. He was offered an employment package which included paid vacation and insurance benefits that he never received. 3. Another Interstate manager, Bill Landers, kept an eye of him. 4. His employment lasted two weeks. 5. He was fired for an attitude problem and for giving away tea and coffee to employees. Where in these circumstances is the substantial proof of fraud? All the majority has done is set out events leading up to an employee termination and call it by a new name — pretextual deceit. Fraud can be inferred from circumstantial evidence as the majority emphasizes. But that can only occur “where the circumstances are so clear and well connected as to clearly show fraud,” as the jury was instructed. Our cases are also legion that fraud is never presumed but must be affirmatively proved by circumstantial or actual evidence. See, e.g., Bradley v. Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Insur. Co., 392 F. Supp. 478 (E.D. Ark. 1975); Berkeley Pump Co. v. Reed-Joseph Land Co., 279 Ark. 384, 653 S.W.2d 128 (1983); Ouachita Electric Cooperative Corp. v. Evans-St. Clair, 12 Ark.App. 171, 672 S.W.2d 660(1984).That was not done in this case. By its decision the majority opens the door for frivolous litigation. Hereafter, anytime an employee is fired during the early days of employment, he or she can contend, without further proof, that the employment was a pretext and that the employer intended all along to hire only for the short term. That cannot be the law. For a cause of action in deceit to prevail, there need be more than a theory and a conjured suspicion of conspiracy. There must be proof, either circumstantial or actual, to sustain the theory. Here, the proof was gossamer thin. We presume fraud when we adopt a theory without substantial evidence to support it. I would reverse the judgment.