Cartwright v. Scheels All Sports, Inc.
2013 MT 158
Mont.2013Background
- Brandon Cartwright worked at Scheels Great Falls from 1996–2007 as lead assistant manager; he had a long‑term cohabiting relationship with one assistant manager and a later affair with another (J.).
- Rumors of the affair circulated among assistant managers, causing interpersonal conflict, a resignation, and manager Werner to confront Cartwright and J.; both were fired after denying a relationship and Cartwright becoming angry.
- Cartwright received unemployment benefits (agency found no termination for misconduct) but sued Scheels in state court under the Wrongful Discharge from Employment Act (WDEA), alleging discharge for having the relationship and for refusing to discuss it.
- Scheels defended that it discharged Cartwright for workplace disruption, loss of trust among assistant managers, and Cartwright’s profane/insubordinate conduct toward management.
- District Court denied Cartwright summary judgment on liability, granted Scheels summary judgment on the public‑policy/retaliation claim, denied several of Cartwright’s motions (sanctions, amendment for punitive damages), and a jury ultimately found in favor of Scheels; the Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Summary judgment preclusion based on unemployment finding | Cartwright: unemployment eligibility precludes relitigation; entitles him to summary judgment on liability | Scheels: unemployment decision is not binding; WDEA "good cause" inquiry differs | Affirmed denial of summary judgment; unemployment decision not conclusive under § 39‑51‑110 and issues differ (misconduct v. "good cause") |
| 2. Sanctions for deletion of employee emails/computer files | Cartwright: Scheels destroyed evidence and abused discovery; seeks default judgment | Scheels: routine IT policy deleted accounts pre‑litigation; no bad faith or concealment | Affirmed denial of default sanction; no showing of bad faith and prejudice insufficient for default |
| 3. Leave to amend to add punitive damages under WDEA §39‑2‑905(2) | Cartwright: punitive damages permitted because Scheels violated privacy and acted maliciously | Scheels: punitive claim rests on public‑policy retaliation theory, which District Court already rejected | Affirmed denial of amendment; public‑policy claim was dismissed, foreclosing punitive damages theory |
| 4. Admissibility of defendant’s HR expert testimony on ultimate issues | Cartwright: expert invaded jury province and opined on credibility/ultimate legal issues | Scheels: expert provided HR practice context and perceptions of co‑workers (not legal conclusions) | Affirmed admission; expert testimony aided jury on human‑resources practice and perceptions, not legal conclusions |
| 5. Admission of witness testimony about workplace rumors | Cartwright: hearsay; should be excluded | Scheels: statements offered to show effect on listeners and workplace, not truth of rumors | Affirmed admission; testimony was nonhearsay (effect on listeners) and relevant to workplace disruption |
Key Cases Cited
- Eastgate Village Water and Sewer v. Davis, 343 Mont. 108 (de novo review of summary judgment under M. R. Civ. P. 56)
- Rooney v. City of Cut Bank, 365 Mont. 375 (issue‑preclusion test elements)
- Oliver v. Stimson Lumber Co., 297 Mont. 336 (duty to preserve evidence)
- Lewistown Propane Co. v. Moncur, 313 Mont. 368 (sanctions review—abuse of discretion)
- Denton v. First Interstate Bank of Commerce, 333 Mont. 169 (amendment of pleadings—abuse of discretion)
- Nelson v. Nelson, 329 Mont. 85 (trial court discretion on expert testimony admissibility)
- Weber v. BNSF Ry. Co., 362 Mont. 53 (review standard for expert testimony rulings)
- State v. Harris, 247 Mont. 405 (expert may not determine witness credibility)
- Kizer v. Semitool, 251 Mont. 199 (expert offering legal conclusions inadmissible)
- Heltborg v. Modern Mach., 244 Mont. 24 (same—experts cannot opine on legal issues for jury)
- Young v. Horton, 259 Mont. 34 (limits on experts opining on ultimate factual issues)
- Perdue v. Gagnon Farms, Inc., 314 Mont. 303 (experts may testify on ultimate issues of fact)
- Murray v. Talmage, 335 Mont. 155 (statements admissible to show effect on listener—nonhearsay)
- Moats Trucking Co. v. Gallatin Dairies, Inc., 231 Mont. 474 (same)