Dundas v. Winter Sports, Inc.
2017 MT 269
| Mont. | 2017Background
- Mark Dundas worked as a seasonal ski-resort employee at Winter Sports, Inc. (WSI) each winter from 2003–2014 and was rehired for the 2014–2015 season as a Snow Safety Coordinator.
- WSI’s Employee Handbook classifies seasonal workers as hired for predetermined periods of less than 12 months, states that rehires are “a new employee for all purposes,” and defines probationary employment as the first six months.
- Dundas was terminated on March 1, 2015 (about four months into the 2014–2015 season) after managers found his conduct and communications insubordinate and inappropriate.
- Dundas sued under the Montana Wrongful Discharge From Employment Act (WDEA), asserting: lack of good cause, failure to follow personnel policies (progressive discipline), and discharge for refusing to violate or for reporting violations of public policy.
- WSI moved for summary judgment arguing Dundas was a probationary employee and thus terminable at will under § 39-2-904(2), and that Dundas produced no evidence of a public-policy violation or reporting.
- The District Court granted summary judgment for WSI; the Montana Supreme Court affirmed, holding Dundas was a probationary employee when fired and failed to show any public-policy claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dundas was a probationary employee at termination | Dundas argued his employment was continuous since 2003 and his six-month probation expired long ago | WSI argued each seasonal hire terminated at season end and each rehire is a new employee with a new six-month probation | Held: Handbook and WDEA show seasonal rehires are new employees; Dundas was on probation when terminated |
| Whether probationary status precluded wrongful discharge claims | Dundas argued he was entitled to protections (e.g., progressive discipline) | WSI argued probationary employees may be terminated for any or no reason under § 39-2-904(2) | Held: Probationary status bars wrongful discharge claims based on lack of good cause or progressive discipline |
| Whether WSI violated its written personnel policies | Dundas claimed WSI failed to follow its personnel policies before firing him | WSI argued handbook treats seasonal rehire as new and permits at-will termination during probation | Held: Because Dundas was probationary, failure-to-follow-policy claim fails as a matter of law |
| Whether Dundas was discharged for refusing to violate or for reporting violations of public policy | Dundas claimed his termination was retaliatory whistleblowing or refusal to violate public policy | WSI argued Dundas produced no evidence of any constitutional, statutory, or administrative rule violation or reporting thereof | Held: Dundas produced no evidence of protected public-policy activity; summary judgment for WSI was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Kuszmaul v. Sterling Life Ins. Co., 282 P.3d 665 (Mont. 2012) (WDEA is the exclusive remedy for wrongful discharge)
- Blehm v. St. John’s Lutheran Hospital, 246 P.3d 1024 (Mont. 2010) (WDEA protects employees after probationary period; employers may define probation)
- Krebs v. Ryan Oldsmobile, 843 P.2d 312 (Mont. 1992) (discharge in retaliation for reporting or refusing to violate public policy is actionable)
- Pilgeram v. GreenPoint Mortgage, 313 P.3d 839 (Mont. 2013) (standard of review for summary judgment under M. R. Civ. P. 56)