Court Opinion

ID: 9704570
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:40:18.126718+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:03.458181
License: Public Domain

STATON, Judge,
concurring in result.
The provision of the Sales Compensation Plan signed by Weiser stated that "[It is specifically understood and agreed to by Employer and Employee that no commission will be paid to Employee or credited to Employee's account after the termination of Employee's employment with the Employer." Record, p. 9. However, the applicability of this provision in this employment at will context creates an unconscionable advantage in God-by Brothers' favor which is contrary to public policy, rendering this contract term unenforceable. For this reason, I concur in the result reached by Judge Sullivan. -
Unjust contract provisions created where a party has a superior bargaining position will be deemed unenforceable on the grounds of being contrary to public policy. Weaver v. American Oil Co. (1971), 257 Ind. 458, 276 N.E.2d 144, 148, reh. denied. Moreover, a contract may be declared unenforceable due to unconscionability when there is a great disparity in the bargaining power which leads the party with the lesser power to sign a contract unwillingly and unaware of its terms. Nylen v. Park Doral Apartments (1989), Ind.App., 535 N.E.2d 178, 184, trans. denied. In addition, the contract must be one that no sensible person not under delusion, duress, or in distress would make, and one that no honest and fair person would aceept. Id. (emphasis added).
While Judge Sullivan focuses his analysis on the employment contract and Godby Brothers' duty to act in good faith and fair dealing, I find that application of a termination provision in this employment at will context troublesome on public policy grounds.
The employment at will doctrine rests upon the notion that an employment contract of an indefinite duration is presumptively terminable at will. Orr v. Westminster Village North, Inc. (1995), Ind.App., 651 N.E.2d 795, 798, reh. denied, trams. pending. Yet, public policy exceptions to the employment at will doctrine have been created to avoid the harshness of the rule. See McClanahan v. Remington Freight Lines, Inc. (1988), Ind., 517 N.E.2d 390, 392 (employee at will fired for refusing to commit illegal act had cause of action for wrongful discharge); Frampton v. Central Indiana Gas Co. (1973), 260 Ind. 249, 297 N.E.2d 425 (employee discharged for exercising statutory right of filing for worker's compensation had cause of action for retaliatory discharge). See also Call v. Scott Brass, Inc. (1990), Ind.App., 553 N.E.2d 1225, trans. denied (employee discharged for complying with statutory obligation to appear for jury service had cause of action for retaliatory discharge).
In determining that an exception to the employment at will doctrine should exist when an employer fires an employee for re*241fusing to commit an illegal act, the court noted the power the employer has over an employee. McClanahan, supra, at 393. The court explained that, in such instances, the employee is left with the choice of losing his job or committing an illegal act, and thus, forces the employee to break the law simply out of financial necessity. Id. The court emphasized that "[elmployers knowing the employees' susceptibility to such threats and the absence of civil retribution, would be prompted to present such an ultimatum." Id.
Although Godby Brothers did not force Weiser to engage in illegal conduct as in McClanahan, the facts presented here are analogous in that Godby Brothers' imposed an unconscionable condition on Weiser's employment which he was compelled to accept. The record indicates that Weiser was told to either sign the Sales Compensation Plan or be fired. Thus, when Godby Brothers tendered him the Sales Compensation Plan, Weiser had the dubious choice of either accepting continued employment with Godby Brothers on its terms or reject the terms and resign. Weiser signed the Plan and was subsequently terminated after he secured Godby Brothers a job which would have allotted him a high commission.
Enforcement of the termination provision allowed Godby Brothers to terminate Weiser as soon as he earned a commission in accordance with a provision of an agreement which Weiser signed out of the necessity of keeping his job. The provision allowed God-by Brothers to cireumvent paying its' employee a high commission by firing that employee prior to payday. Enforcement of this type of provision effectively undermines an employee's sense of job security and desire to succeed, as the employee may become concerned with procuring jobs with potentially high commissions out of fear of being fired prior to being paid. In this context, the termination provision perpetuates the employee's susceptibility to an employer's excessive demands and strengthens an employer's already overwhelming power over employees at will. Public policy warrants an exception to the employment at will doctrine in this instance.
While I acknowledge that exceptions to the employment at will doctrine should be narrowly construed, our courts should be reminded that:
The employment at will doctrine is not of messianic origin; as so many Jurisdictions have recognized, the rule is amenable to adaptation. In most instances, the rule can and should continue to govern this jurisdiction. It should not, however, be applied in cireumstances where it serves indirectly to perpetuate and implicitly to condone employers' violations of clearly expressed public policy.
Campbell v. Eli Lilly & Co. (1981), Ind., 421 N.E.2d 1099, 1103 (Hunter, J., dissenting to denial of transfer). Compelling Weiser to sign a Sales Compensation Plan which contained a provision that effectively allowed Godby Brothers to terminate his employment instead of paying him an earned commission is such a violation.
For these reasons, I concur in Judge Sullivan's decision to reverse partial summary judgment.