Court Opinion

ID: 9591434
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:04:17.828959+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:10.681670
License: Public Domain

*876URBIGKIT, Justice,
dissenting
I dissent. This court should reverse the summary judgment granted by the district court by acknowledging that an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing accompanies this employment contract and that under such covenant, a question of material fact exists to preclude summary judgment. Reed v. Municipality of Anchorage, 782 P.2d 1155 (Alaska 1989). The violation by the Converse County School District No. 2 (School District) of its own policy and the imprimatur of nepotism combine to present a question whether Judith Ware (Ware) was treated in good faith and fair dealing during her contract term as a school district employee.
This court should recognize that implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing accompany those public employment contracts which are not merely at-will. Public employment contracts should at least align with general contract law. See Restatement (Second) of Contracts, § 205 at 99 (1981).1 In Reese v. Dow Chemical Co., 728 P.2d 1118, 1120 (Wyo.1986), this court harmonized jury findings after a trial court instructed the jury how to calculate damages for “breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing” despite the fact the court did “not address” appellee’s cross-appeal issue that such a covenant is not recognized in Wyoming. But that harmonization seems to require tacit recognition of such a covenant. This court would presumably correct, under W.R.A.P. 7.05, a jury instruction which informed a jury how to calculate damages for breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing if no such covenant operated in Wyoming. See Baird v. School Dist. No. 25, Fremont County, 41 Wyo. 451, 458, 287 P. 308, 310 (1930).
Beyond Reese, my conclusion that such a covenant exists is reinforced by cases which narrowly hold that at-will contracts are not accompanied by any implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. See Nelson v. Crimson Enterprises, Inc., 777 P.2d 73, 76 n. 3 (Wyo.1989); Chasson v. Community Action of Laramie County, Inc., 768 P.2d 572, 575 n. 1 (Wyo.1989); Leithead v. American Colloid Co., 721 P.2d 1059, 1064 (Wyo.1986); Mobil Coal Producing, Inc. v. Parks, 704 P.2d 702, 704 (Wyo.1985); and Rompf v. John Q. Hammons Hotels, Inc., 685 P.2d 25, 28 (Wyo.1984) (specifically reserving the question).
Based on such an inference and case law from other states,2 I would hold there is a question of material fact, see Cordova v. Gosar, 719 P.2d 625, 639-40 (Wyo.1986), whether Ware was treated fairly during the time her contract was in effect — despite the possibility that such a breach could be detected only after the contract had terminated. As such, I would hold that the summary judgment was premature. A jury trial should be provided to resolve whether or not the facts support the complaint that the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing was breached. Fiscus v. Atlantic Richfield, 773 P.2d 158, 161 (Wyo.1989); Davenport v. Epperly, 744 P.2d 1110, 1113 (Wyo.1987).
Viewing the record in the light most favorable to Ware, we can infer the following scenario. Ware became aware of a prospective vacancy due to a colleague’s ex*877pected resignation at the end of the year. Knowing her own position was in jeopardy by a district RIF decision, she went to the assistant superintendent for personnel to find out how she might apply to fill that vacancy. School personnel gave the assistant superintendent’s son the right to transfer to the soon-to-be-vacated position without giving Ware any opportunity to apply for the position even though Ware had seniority. The son had not even applied for the position nor had the school personnel complied with established school district policies when that decision was made. Although the school district attempted to soften the appearance of unfairness by later staging a formal interview for both the son and Ware, it is possible to infer from the record that a nepotic benefit occurred.3
Ware’s employment contract, drafted by the School Board and school administrators, stated that the terms of the contract were subject to the policies of the School Board. School Board policy required that notice of a job vacancy within the staff be posted for five days. No notice was posted for the job eventually awarded to the son of the assistant superintendent (personnel officer). On May 8, 1986, the School Board accepted the resignation of Kathy Williams after the decision had already been made by school district personnel to transfer the assistant superintendent’s son to the high school once Williams’ resignation was accepted. While the son was given representations that he would have the job at the high school, that representation was later “withdrawn” to allow Ware to interview for the job. On May 9, Ware was notified her position was being terminated. Both Ware and the son formally applied for Williams’ old position and both were interviewed by people subordinate to the assistant superintendent. Not very surprisingly, based on their recommendation, the son of the assistant superintendent was rewarded the vacated position.
While the decision to employ the son of the assistant superintendent may have been unaffected^ by nepotism after Ware was provided a formal opportunity to apply for the new position, the appearance of unfairness and the fact that the hiring decision occurred after the school district violated its own policy creates a question of material fact regarding a possible breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Reasonable inferences from the record preclude summary judgment being used to absolve the employer without *878establishing the facts in a jury trial. A jury may or may not conclude that school district administrators violated Ware’s contractual rights under an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Mobil Coal Producing, Inc., 704 P.2d 702; Milford v. de Lasala, 666 P.2d 1000 (Alaska 1983); Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Memorial Hosp., 147 Ariz. 370, 710 P.2d 1025 (1985); Crenshaw v. Bozeman Deaconess Hosp., 213 Mont. 488, 693 P.2d 487 (1984); K Mart Corp. v. Ponsock, 103 Nev. 39, 732 P.2d 1364 (1987). Cf. Morriss v. Coleman Co., Inc., 241 Kan. 501, 738 P.2d 841 (1987) and cases cited therein.
In rejecting majority opinion impalement of rights of the employee on first horn by denial of any employee right or benefit from school district policies and employment regulations, I similarly challenge hanging the decision on the second horn by asseveration of at-will employment. This case involves a female career custodian with the Converse County School District who had a written contract and, within its provisions, was denied an application opportunity. That opportunity was sought in light of the prospective reduction in force. Nothing whatsoever was provided by school district policy or direction or other advice given the employee which would suggest a transfer policy only to be effective for transfers within the current employment year. Likewise, the reduction in force policy was written in similar language and obviously related to a future year as well as present year staffing.
I believe that the summary judgment disposition should be reversed and remanded for a trial on the merits. Wagenseller, 710 P.2d 1025.

. Most recently in Nelson v. Crimson Enterprises, Inc., 777 P.2d 73, 76 n. 3 (Wyo.1989), this court declined to decide whether at-will employment arrangements contained an implied contract of good faith and fair dealing. Cf. Chasson v. Community Action of Laramie County, Inc., 768 P.2d 572, 575 n. 1 (Wyo.1989). Despite the perspective of this majority, this case does not appear to be an at-will personal service contract. Ware had an employment contract which incorporated by reference a transfer policy and reduction in force (RIF) arrangement. Ware’s complaint centers on events which occurred while her contract was in effect. K Mart Corp. v. Ponsock, 103 Nev. 39, 732 P.2d 1364 (1987).

. See Restatement (Second) of Contracts, supra, at § 205, which states "[e]very contract imposes upon each party a duty of good faith and fair dealing in its performance and its enforcement." See also Mitford v. de Lasala, 666 P.2d 1000, 1007 (Alaska 1983); Bodenhamer v. Superior Court (St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.), 192 Cal.App.3d 1472, 238 Cal.Rptr. 177 (1987); Perkins v. Thompson, 551 So.2d 204, 209 (Miss.1989); UHS-Qualicare, Inc. v. Gulf Coast Community Hosp., Inc., 525 So.2d 746, 757 (1987), reh’g dismissed 525 So.2d 758 (Miss.1988); and Mahan v. Farmers Union Cent. Exchange, Inc., 768 P.2d 850, 856 (Mont. 1989).

. Ware summarizes her critique of events by statement in appellate brief:
Early in the year, it became known in the District that there were to be cutbacks in staffing and appellant was concerned about the continuation of her job. * * * A fellow custodian, Kathy Williams, informed Mrs. Ware that she would be resigning her position at the high school at the end of the year and suggested appellant apply for the vacated position. * * *
Mrs. Ware’s supervisors recommended that she contact Jim Hoyt, the Assistant Superin-tendant [sic] and father of Tom Hoyt, another custodian in the District. * * * Appellant called Mr. Hoyt and inquired as to how she could apply for the anticipated vacancy. Mr. Hoyt was not then aware of the planned Williams resignation, but informed Mrs. Ware that the vacancy had to be posted for five days and that she should apply for an intra-district transfer as provided in the School District Policies. * * *
In May, 1986, some eight months later, the Board of Trustees met and the resignation of Kathy Williams occurred as anticipated by Mrs. Ware. * * * Also as anticipated by Mrs. Ware, her position was eliminated. * * *
However, the Board, without posting the required notice or allowing other employees to apply for transfer, and upon the recommendation of Jim Hoyt, approved the hiring of Tom Hoyt, his son, whose previous custodial job with the District was also eliminated, to fill the position vacated by Kathy Williams.
After the meeting, appellant’s supervisor informed her that her position had been eliminated and that Kathy Williams had resigned. * * * The next helped her contact Jim Hoyt with the expectation that she could apply for the vacated position in the manner provided in the rules incorporated in Mrs. Ware’s contract. * * *
Upon meeting with Jim Hoyt that afternoon, appellant was informed by him that the position was already filled and that she could not apply for it. * * * She queried as to why this was the case since the position had only been vacated the night before. Appellant was informed by Mr. Hoyt that the administration ran the district and that "... we’ll do what we want to do.”