Court Opinion

ID: 9797767
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 04:28:55.364583+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:58:19.139775
License: Public Domain

ROBINSON, Judge (concurring in part and dissenting in part). {26} I concur in the majority’s decision to reverse and remand on the Plaintiffs claim that Defendant breached an implied contract regarding hours and duties. I disagree, however, with the majority’s holding that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant, as to constructive discharge. There were issues of material fact concerning whether Defendant made Plaintiffs employment intolerable, leading to constructive discharge. I conclude that the trier of fact should have considered these issues rather than disposing of Plaintiffs claims by summary judgment. {27} After many years of employment, Plaintiff saw his promised duties and employment conditions of the predecessor-owner changed by the new owner, the Defendant, one by one. First, his hours were reduced, which in turn resulted in a cut in pay. Then his duty was made less safe, which in turn made Plaintiff more susceptible to injury. Then his hours were cut even more a second time, and his pay was reduced again. When Plaintiff was 58 years old, the predecessor-owner placed him on “light duty” for safety and health reasons. Under the new owner, however, Plaintiffs “light duty” status was changed to include more strenuous activity; Plaintiff was 62 years old at the time of this change. In addition, despite the fact that Plaintiff was never “written up” for disciplinary action, he testified that his supervisor continually picked on him by criticizing the quality of Plaintiffs cleaning of the restrooms and offices, which were just two of his various duties. {28} The majority focuses on the fact that Plaintiff remained on the job for moi’e than a year after the initial reduction in hours. Thus, it seems that the majority would penalize Plaintiff for not immediately resigning after the first punitive action taken against him by Defendant. They believe that Plaintiffs waiting almost a year after first having his hours cut and his pay reduced and staying on through a change in job duties that made him less safe and more susceptible to injury, only to have his hours and pay further reduced, works against his constructive discharge claim. {29} I view this just the opposite. By not resigning immediately after the first punitive action against him, Plaintiff showed great restraint and waited until his employment became unbearable and really intolerable, leaving him, as a reasonable man, no other choice but to resign. The majority seems concerned with the timing of Plaintiffs resignation. It is cruel to say that a worker, now aged 62, must be penalized for checking to see when his Social Security payments would kick in, before taking the final step of resigning, under constructive discharge. I see Plaintiffs actions as that of a reasonable man, not a fool who just gets mad and says “I quit” at the first provocation. Hence, constructive discharge. The trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant as to constructive discharge. {30} For these reasons, I respectfully concur in part and dissent in part.