Court Opinion

ID: 9529626
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:52:42.268076+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:51.781028
License: Public Domain

Springer, J.,
dissenting:
I dissent because I do not believe that summary judgment was properly entered in this case.1
The trial court recites in its order granting summary judgment the following statement of Wayment’s “version of the facts”:
[Wayment] was assigned to work on a number of motions to dismiss and petitions for writs of habeas corpus in the Champion Chevrolet case. [Wayment’s] supervisor was Defendant Don Coppa. Wayment discovered that the Indictment was invalid and that no legitimate defense could be raised to a number of the contentions in the Motions and Petitions. [Wayment] urged Coppa to amend the Indictment or dismiss the same and reindict the defendants. Coppa refused because a Motion to Amend would constitute an admission that he had made an error. Wayment argues that he had a legal right to protest this misconduct and was fired for questioning Coppa’s position.
Other alleged facts, appearing in Wayment’s complaint or in Wayment’s affidavit, are:
—Wayment claims in his complaint that “[defendant Holmes ratified the actions of Defendant Coppa in terminating the employment of Plaintiff.”
—Wayment claims to have been fired “for questioning Coppa’s position” and not for any other reason. This claim is supported by Wayment’s affidavit that his immediate supervisor “repeatedly advised [him] that he was satisfied with [his] work, and further advised [him] that [the supervisor] had recommended [him] for the maximum raise possible.”
—Wayment claims that Coppa admitted that he “did not understand” the law upon which the indictment was based *240and that Coppa admitted “certain problems in the indictment were due to [his] ‘incompetence.’ ” Wayment claims that Coppa told Wayment “that he did not want to try to amend the indictment because a motion to amend the indictment would concede that Coppa had made an error.”
—The indictments drafted by Coppa about which Wayment was complaining were subsequently dismissed because they were defective as a matter of law.
—Wayment charged in his complaint that he was “terminated as a direct and proximate consequence of asserting his legal and ethical responsibilities by objecting to the defective pleadings in the Champion Chevrolet case, and the malicious, wrongful prosecution of the Champion defendants under a knowingly defective indictment.” Wayment further charges that “he was wrongfully and maliciously terminated in retaliation for exercising a legal right and duty in the required performance with [sic] his duties as an officer of the Court and a member of the State Bar of Nevada in violation of the public policy of this state.”
Wayment sues Holmes and Coppa on an intentional tort, the so-called “public policy” tort, a claimed tortious discharge alleged to have been committed by Holmes and Coppa (1) in malicious retaliation for Wayment’s having exercised his legal duty to oppose a prosecution on an indictment known to be defective and (2) for Wayment’s attempt to thwart what he calls “the malicious, wrongful prosecution of the Champion defendants under a knowingly defective indictment.”
The trial court properly dismissed the “Washoe County District Attorney’s Office” as a party because it “is not a suable entity.” The trial court properly dismissed the County of Washoe because it is a governmental entity entitled to governmental immunity. The trial court incorrectly dismissed Holmes and Coppa on the ground of “immunity under NRS 41.032.”
Immunity under the cited statute is given to public officers who are exercising their discretion in the performance of their public duties ‘“whether or not the discretion involved is abused.’” Falline v. GNLV Corp. 107 Nev. 1004, 1009 n.3, 823 P.2d 888, 892 n.3 (1991) (quoting NRS 41.032(2)). The case at hand involves an intentional tort alleged to have been committed by Holmes and Coppa. In the cases of malice, bad faith or other intentional misconduct a different rule relating to governmental immunity obtains. When an intentional or malicious “act or omission of bad faith occurs outside the circumference of authority,” public officials may be held liable for their tortious misconduct. Falline, 107 Nev. at 1010 n.3, 823 P.2d at 892 n.3.
*241In Edgar v. Wagner, 101 Nev. 226, 699 P.2d 110 (1985), this court ruled on the question of the governmental immunity enjoyed by a district attorney. Where a complaint charged that a district attorney acted with malice and “in a deliberately structured effort to deprive appellant of due process, the allegations of the complaint state[d] a claim which, if accepted by the trier of fact, could entitle appellant to relief.” Id. at 228, 699 P.2d at 112. Edgar held that the district court erred in concluding that malicious or deliberate wrongdoing was a prosecutorial function cloaked with absolute immunity. Id. In Edgar, this court noted that where a prosecutor is functioning “primarily as an administrator” then “protection from liability depends upon a showing that the prosecutor entertained a good faith, reasonable belief in actions taken in an administrative . . . capacity.” Wayment has alleged that Holmes and Coppa, acting as they were in an administrative capacity when they discharged him, were not acting in good faith, but, rather, out of malice and other bad motives. Under the circumstances of the present case, which are similar to the Edgar case, Holmes and Coppa are not entitled to immunity as a matter of law.
Holmes and Coppa, naturally, claim that their termination of Wayment was merely a discretionary act, well within their “circumference of authority.” Wayment, on the other hand, claims that Holmes and Coppa were acting “maliciously” and in “retaliation” for his having protested their irresponsible pursuit of an ill-founded prosecution which, for improper motives (“a wrongful, malicious prosecution of the Champion defendants”), was being advanced on a “knowingly defective indictment.” These are, of course, two widely-disparate views of the nature of Wayment’s firing. As Holmes and Coppa would have it, Wayment was simply being obstreperous, headstrong and insubordinate; so they fired him. In Wayment’s view, he was merely trying to do everything he could do to prevent Holmes and Coppa from improperly and unlawfully putting Champion Chevrolet and its agents to the pain and expense of having to defend against a facially defective indictment. Wayment contends that because he tried to stop Holmes and Coppa from knowingly proceeding on a faulty indictment, they decided to fire him in retaliation for his opposition to their willful and malicious prosecution of the Champion Chevrolet people. As an appellate court, we cannot know which version might be correct; but, of course, Wayment should have his day in court if he has properly stated an action for retaliatory, tortious discharge.
The question that should have been decided in this appeal is whether a public employee states a claim for relief when the employee claims to have been maliciously terminated in retalia*242tion for performing his or her public duty. This question is not addressed by the majority. I would answer the question in the affirmative. If Wayment was terminated, as he claims, for complying with his mandatory, ethical duty, then this would certainly be violative of the public policy which encourages public officials and particularly public lawyers to perform their duties and to behave in a moral and ethical manner.
“A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis for doing so that is not frivolous . . . .” SCR 170. A prosecutor is required to “[r]efrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause . . . .” SCR 179(1). Both Holmes and Coppa were under a duty not to pursue a frivolous or knowingly unfounded criminal indictment. If Wayment can prove, as he claims, that he advised Mr. Coppa that the indictment was faulty, that there was no probable cause to support the charges as they were then written, that Coppa and Holmes insisted upon proceeding on a knowingly defective indictment and that, then, they decided to terminate Wayment for his properly having objected to the prosecution of defendants on an indictment which Holmes and Coppa knew was defective, such conduct would, as stated, be contrary to the public policy of this state. Such allegations support an action for the intentional tor-tious discharge against Holmes and Coppa, and I would disallow either a motion to dismiss or a defendants’ summary judgment under such circumstances.

Respondents moved to dismiss Wayment’s complaint, but the trial court “elected to treat this application as a Motion for Summary Judgment in view of the fact that both counsel refer to documents other than the pleadings.”