Court Opinion

ID: 9597738
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:02:31.494438+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:39.263659
License: Public Domain

ZIMMERMAN, Justice
(concurring in the result):
I join in reversing and remanding this matter for trial. I also join in parts I, II, III, IV, and V.A. of the lead opinion. However, I do not join in the remainder of that opinion. I find misleading the portion that purports to survey the current state of the judicially created exceptions to the employment-at-will doctrine, and I cannot agree with the attempt to state in some detail what discharge-based causes of action will be recognized in Utah in the future. Nor do I join in the holding that plaintiff Be-rube has a cause of action for breach of a covenant of good faith and fair dealing. I would permit this case to go to the jury only on the question of whether defendant Fashion Centre breached a term of the agreement between it and Berube.
As Justice Durham has shown, the employment-at-will doctrine’s origins and theoretical underpinnings give it little claim to our allegiance, and courts of various states have made inroads on the doctrine. However, a fact not fully acknowledged in the lead opinion is that there is considerable divergence among the courts that have addressed the issues, both as to the precise content of the several exceptions that have developed and as to the degree of acceptance each of these exceptions has found.1 Because the law in this area is in a state of flux, and because the at-will doctrine has become well entrenched in our law and any change in it has the potential to affect the practices of almost every employer in Utah, we must proceed with care in recognizing exceptions to that doctrine. Cf. Johnson v. Rogers, 763 P.2d 771, 784 (Utah 1988) (Zimmerman, J., concurring) (adopting a conservative and detailed approach to the issue *1051of punitive damages for drunk driving); Yorgason v. County Bd. of Equalization ex rel. Episcopal Management Corp., 714 P.2d 653, 661 n. 1, 664 n. 5 (Utah 1986) (Zimmerman, J., concurring) (advocating caution and specificity in altering charitable property tax exemption law).
All that being said, we are reversing and remanding this matter for trial and are signaling a change in the employment-at-will law of Utah. Because those joining in the lead opinion have expressed themselves so fully with respect to the direction they think we are taking, I will briefly outline my views on the principal points they raise.
I agree with the lead opinion’s characterization of the at-will doctrine as legitimately consisting only of a presumption as to what parties to employment agreements intend, a presumption that properly can be rebutted by a showing of expressed or implied intentions to the contrary. I also agree that logically, this means that no separate consideration is required to overcome the presumption and that mutuality of obligation is not a necessary prerequisite to enforcement of an agreement in derogation of the presumption. It is worth noting that these judicially created impediments to rejection of the at-will doctrine appear to have had their source in the same philosophical impulse that crafted the presumption in the first place.
The courts of many other states have recently developed exceptions to the at-will doctrine. Those exceptions have generally been classified under the headings “public policy,” “implied-in-fact,” and “covenant of good faith and fair dealing.” See, e.g., Dertouzos, Holland, & Ebener, The Legal and Economic Consequences of Wrongful Termination, 3602 RAND Inst, for Civ. Just. 1, 5-10,13 (1988) [hereinafter Wrongful Termination ]; Note, Protecting Employees At-Will Against Wrongful Discharge: The Public Policy Exception, 96 Harv.L.Rev. 1931, 1935-37 (1983). As for the “public policy” exception, I agree with the lead opinion that such an exception to the at-will presumption should be recognized in Utah, even though it is not applicable in the present case. While I am not prepared to say what the precise content of that exception should be, I am of the view that any cause of action that may accrue to an employee discharged in violation of public policy would not ordinarily be in tort. I would imbed the public policy exception in the law by holding that every employment contract has an implied-in-law covenant that the employee will not be discharged in violation of public policy. Absent proof sufficient to show an independent tort, damages recoverable for a breach of that covenant would be measured by contract principles only. See Beck v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 701 P.2d 795, 800 & n. 3 (Utah 1985).
As for the “covenant of good faith and fair dealing” cause of action recognized by a few courts, most notably the California intermediate appellate courts, I see no need to address whether such a cause of action should be recognized in Utah because it is unnecessary to the decision of this case. But even if the issue were presented, I would not join the lead opinion on this point.
The rubric of a covenant of good faith and fair dealing has been used by the California courts and a few others to effectively impose upon employers in a variety of rather unpredictable circumstances a duty not to deprive employees of the benefits of their employment without just cause. See Wrongful Termination at 9-10; e.g., Cleary v. American Airlines, Inc., 111 Cal.App.3d 443, 168 Cal.Rptr. 722 (1980). Breach of this duty exposes the employer to a tort action for damages. Cleary, 111 Cal.App.3d at 456, 168 Cal.Rptr. at 729; Wrongful Termination at 10.2
The lead opinion recognizes, as we held in Beck, that a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing in Utah yields a claim for contract damages only. But the lead opinion completely fails to establish *1052predictable guidelines for determining what that duty is and when an employer can be found to owe such a duty to an employee. The result would be to give finders of fact a license to determine the duty’s content and to impose their version of the duty, after the fact, on virtually any employer. I can understand the desire to assure that justice is done to individual employees, but the cost of uncertainty for employers is simply too great to justify creation of the cause of action proposed by the lead opinion. Until we have had a better opportunity to consider the minimum rights and obligations that inhere in the employment relationship, as we did in Beck with respect to first-party contracts of insurance, I would reject invitations to create this cause of action.
Finally, I come to the exception that can be termed “implied-in-fact.” This term describes a trend to make it easier for employees to demonstrate that their employment was not at will and that there were limitations on their employers’ right to discharge them. Wrongful Termination at 6-8. Although the lead opinion paints a general picture in part V.B.2. of a single line of authority on this issue, the fact is that courts have taken several divergent approaches to the construction of employment agreements and the implication of terms limiting discretion to discharge. Wrongful Termination at 6-8; Note, Protecting At-Will Employees Against Wrongful Discharge: The Duty to Terminate Only in Good Faith, 93 Harv.L.Rev. 1816, 1820-21 (1980); Annotation, Modem Status of Rule that Employer May Discharge At-Will Employee for any Reason, 12 Á.L.R. 4th 544, 567-82 (1982 & Supp. 1988). Those approaches range from simply abolishing the requirements of separate consideration and mutuality of obligation to going much further and determining whether the employer has conducted itself so as to limit its right to discharge except for good cause. The cases that exemplify the latter approach reach factually indistinguishable results from those reached in cases decided on the basis of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The only distinction is that the implied-in-fact cause of action is grounded in contract, not tort. See Pugh v. See’s Candies, Inc., 116 Cal.App.3d 311, 324-30,171 Cal.Rptr. 917, 924-27 (1981), appeal after remand, 203 Cal.App.3d 743, 250 Cal.Rptr. 195 (1988).
As noted above, I agree with the lead opinion that there need not be any separate consideration for a promise not to discharge at will, and I also agree that there need be no mutuality of obligation before an employee can sue to enforce such a promise. Because the at-will doctrine is only a presumption, the presumption can be rebutted by demonstrating that the parties did not intend the arrangement to be at will. In this context, the representations made by the employer in employee manuals, bulletins, and the like are legitimate sources for determining the apparent intentions of the parties. Because we need go no further than this to decide the present case, I see no need to fix the precise parameters of the implied-in-fact exception. However, having said that, I would not follow the most extreme cases that fall into this category, such as Pugh, for many of the same reasons that I reject the covenant of good faith and fair dealing cause of action: it provides little predictability, something critical in this area. See Wrongful Termination at 7-8.
Turning to the facts of the present case, I conclude that Berube is entitled to have her wrongful discharge claim decided by a jury. Based on the contents of the written policy manual, a reasonable finder of fact could find that the presumption that Be-rube was an at-will employee had been rebutted. It could also find that the agreement between Berube and Fashion Centre regarding the terms of her employment contained an implied-in-fact term that Fashion Centre would not discharge Berube for a refusal to take a polygraph examination unless that refusal was unreasonable. And, construing the facts in the light most favorable to Berube, a jury could also find that Fashion Centre breached this implied term by requiring Berube to take a third lie detector test when there were no unexplained indications of false testimony in the *1053first two tests regarding the same shortages.
My conclusion that the jury could find that the agreement between Berube and Fashion Centre barred discharge for a reasonable refusal to take a polygraph examination is supported by the fact that the only other possible interpretation of their agreement would make it one for employment at will. Let me explain: If the agreement between the parties were construed to give Fashion Centre license to ask Be-rube to take an unlimited number of polygraph examinations and discharge her if, after taking any number, she refused to take one more, it would essentially be an at-will employment agreement. It is certainly within reason for a finder of fact to conclude that this interpretation of the contract is inconsistent with its whole thrust.
For the foregoing reasons, I join only in parts I, II, III, IV, and V.A. of the lead opinion. I agree with the lead opinion that this case should be remanded for retrial on the wrongful discharge claim, at least to the extent that the claim is based on a theory of breach of an implied term of the employment contract. Construing the facts in a light most favorable to Berube, there is sufficient evidence to go to the jury on this issue.
If on remand the finder of fact determines that Fashion Centre did breach the agreement, damages for breach of that contract may be awarded as proven. As we observed in Beck v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, both general and consequential damages are available for contract breaches, and consequential damages are “those reasonably within the contemplation of, or reasonably foreseeable by, the parties at the time the contract was made.” 702 P.2d at 801. And “[t]he foreseeability of any such damages will always hinge upon the nature and language of the contract and the reasonable expectations of the parties.” Id. (citing J. Calamari & J. Perillo, Contracts § 14-5, at 523-25 (2d ed.1977)).

. For example, a recent study by the Rand Corporation concludes that while thirty-seven states have recognized a “public policy" exception to the employment-at-will doctrine, only thirty-one have adopted what can be termed an “implied-in-fact” approach, and a mere five have permitted a cause of action under the “covenant of good faith and fair dealing” rubric. Dertouzos, Holland, & Ebener, The Legal and Economic Consequences of Wrongful Termination, 3602 RAND Inst, for Civ. Just. 1, 13 (1988). This study also recognizes that there is a good deal of divergence among the courts as to what each of these exceptions means. Id. at 1, 4-12, 13 n. 2.

. The California Supreme Court has recently overruled Cleary to the extent that it permits tort damages for breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Foley v. Interactive Data Corp., 47 Cal.3d 654, 700 n. 42, 765 P.2d 373, 401 n. 42, 254 Cal.Rptr. 211, 239 n. 2 (Cal.1988).