Bollinger v. Fall River Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc.
152 Idaho 632
| Idaho | 2012Background
- Bollinger was hired as cashier/receptionist in 1988; promoted to Energy Auditor in 1993 and M.S. Representative in 2006.
- In 2008 Bollinger became Safety & Loss/Facility Director; termination occurred in July 2009 without cause.
- Fall River’s termination policies changed: 2004 Work Standards and Personal Conduct Policy; 2009 Employment-at-Will policy superseded prior policies.
- 2009 policy stated at-will relationship for non-written contracts and allowed termination for any lawful reason; Bollinger received the policy by email.
- Bollinger alleged a contract existed; no contract or terms produced; she argued for-cause policy remained in effect and seniority policy limited termination.
- District court granted summary judgment for Fall River on all claims; on appeal Bollinger challenges breach, good faith, public policy, NIED/IIED.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract vs. at-will status | Bollinger claims a contract limited termination to cause or implied limits. | Fall River argues at-will policy 2009 superseded prior policies; termination for economic reasons is allowed. | Bollinger was at-will; no implied contract limits shown. |
| Breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing | Policy change to eliminate her role was bad faith. | No contractual duty to terminate for cause; policy change valid workplace-wide modification. | No violation of good faith and fair dealing. |
| Retaliatory discharge/public policy violation | Discharged for reporting safety issues; protected activity; policies violated. | No protected activity shown; discharge motivated by economic consolidation. | No public policy-based retaliation proven. |
| NIED and IIED claims | Discharge caused emotional distress; breach of duty implied by policy. | At-will termination does not breach duty; distress not supported by statutory duty or extreme conduct. | NIED and IIED rejected; no duty breached; conduct not extreme. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jenkins v. Boise Cascade Corp., 141 Idaho 233, 108 P.3d 380 (2005) (presumption of at-will employment absent contract terms)
- Mitchell v. Zilog, Inc., 125 Idaho 709, 874 P.2d 520 (1994) (implied limitations on at-will may arise from circumstances)
- Watson v. Idaho Falls Consol. Hosp., Inc., 111 Idaho 44, 720 P.2d 632 (1986) (employer may unilaterally change terms with notice; acceptance by continued employment)
- Metcalf v. Intermountain Gas Co., 116 Idaho 622, 778 P.2d 744 (1989) (policies may become part of contract if intent to do so is shown)
- Sorensen v. St. Alphonsus Reg’l Med. Ctr., 141 Idaho 754, 118 P.3d 86 (2005) (NIED claims require breach of duty; at-will employment limits relief)
- Ray v. Nampa School Dist., 120 Idaho 117, 814 P.2d 17 (1991) (protected activity may include reporting safety violations)
- Thomas v. Med. Center Physicians, P.A., 138 Idaho 200, 61 P.3d 557 (2002) (public policy exception requires showing of policy and action in furtherance)
- Edmondson v. Shearer Lumber Prod., 139 Idaho 172, 75 P.3d 733 (2003) (public policy exception rooted in statutory language or public obligation)
- Roe v. Albertson’s, Inc., 141 Idaho 524, 112 P.3d 812 (2005) (workers’ compensation exclusivity; emotional distress not arising from physical injury)