280 P.3d 786
Kan. Ct. App.2012Background
- Waddell & Reed hired Charles Deeds in 1998 as VP of marketing and client service; he was at-will with no contract specifying duration.
- Deeds’ compensation included a base salary of $77,000 plus commissions, including a yearly trailing commission of 2.5% capped at $50,000 per account, which could extend after the sale.
- In 2005 Waddell & Reed changed the commission schedule, phasing out the trailer commission after July 1, 2007; Deeds believed the change breached an existing agreement.
- Deeds repeatedly complained about the 2005 change in 2005–2006, and indicated he wanted a fair plan or return of the trailer commissions, while acknowledging he did not know about the Kansas Wage Payment Act at the time.
- On April 9, 2007, Deeds was fired; management indicated the firing was due to his ongoing compensation complaints and dissatisfaction with responses.
- Approximately a year later, Deeds filed a wage claim under the Kansas Wage Payment Act seeking over $1 million; the hearing officer denied the claim in 2009, with an administrative review pending in 2010.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Deeds state a retaliatory-discharge claim under the Kansas Wage Payment Act | Deeds claimed rights under the Act were exercised by filing wage claims. | No notice or clear assertion of Act rights; statements were equivocal. | Deeds did not establish a viable retaliatory-discharge claim. |
| Whether Kansas public policy supports new claims to prevent firing for earned or future commissions | Public policy supports new claims to avoid paying earned or future commissions. | No clear Kansas policy to support such new causes of action. | No valid public-policy-based causes of action recognized. |
| Whether the unjust-enrichment claim is precluded by the wage claim | Equitable relief for unjust enrichment should proceed alongside wage claim. | Wage claim provides adequate remedy; unjust enrichment is derivative. | Unjust-enrichment claim preempted by the Wage Payment Act claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Campbell v. Husky Hogs, 292 Kan. 225 (2011) (retaliatory discharge for exercising wage-rights recognized)
- Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 563 U.S. 1 (2011) (oral or written complaint can trigger anti-retaliation if clearly asserting rights)
- Hysten v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Ry. Co., 277 Kan. 551 (2004) (public policy basis for retaliation tied to statutory rights)
- Coleman v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 242 Kan. 804 (1988) (workers’ compensation context informed notice-based protections)
- Chrisman v. Philips Industries, Inc., 242 Kan. 772 (1988) (employee notice of injury supports statutory protection)
- Pilcher v. Board of Wyandotte County Comm’rs, 14 Kan. App. 2d 206 (1990) (absence of clear notice limits retaliatory-discharge analysis)
- Gould v. Maryland Sound Industries, Inc., 31 Cal. App. 4th 1137 (1995) (California public-policy approach contrasted with Kansas)
- Koopman v. Water Dist. No. 1 of Johnson Co., 972 F.2d 1160 (1992) (employer notice requirement for retaliation claims)