Koopman v. City of Edgemont, 945 N.W.2d 923

Koopman, a licensed engineer, contracted with the City of Edgemont by a written July 13, 2012 Agreement to provide engineering, inspection, and code services for a capped monthly payment of $1,000 and a clause stating “no other benefits are requested or are part of this Agreement.”
In December 2012 Koopman asked to be placed on payroll; he signed a W-4, received the City Personnel Manual (acknowledged receipt), and City began withholding payroll taxes and issuing monthly paychecks.
Paystubs briefly showed accrual of vacation and sick leave, but the finance officer removed those accruals in February 2014 as an error; Koopman did not escalate the matter.
On May 6, 2014 the City Council adopted a written Resolution appointing Koopman City Engineer/Code Officer for a one-year term, reaffirming $1,000/month and adding limited items (cell phone, mileage at $.37/mi, travel costs).
Koopman was not reappointed in May 2015, sought unemployment (Dept. of Labor found him an employee), and sued the City for employee benefits under the Manual dating to December 3, 2012; the trial court found he became an employee in Dec. 2012 but awarded Manual benefits only for May 6, 2014–May 5, 2015 and denied attorney fees.
The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed that Koopman was not entitled to Manual benefits from Dec. 2012–May 2014, reversed the award for May 2014–May 2015 (no entitlement under the Manual), and held he was not entitled to attorney fees under SDCL 60-11-24.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Koopman was entitled to employee benefits in the City Personnel Manual starting Dec. 2012	Koopman: becoming payroll employee and acknowledging the Manual made him entitled to Manual benefits from Dec. 2012	City: the written Agreement controlled compensation/benefits and expressly excluded other benefits; Manual is not a contract	Court: Agreement governs; Koopman not entitled to Manual benefits Dec. 2012–May 2014; Resolution did not modify Agreement to confer Manual benefits, so no benefits May 2014–May 2015 either (award reversed)
Whether Koopman could recover attorney fees under SDCL 60-11-24	Koopman: statute allows attorney fees in wage actions removed from small claims	City: statute applies only to cases removed under the specified provision and requires plaintiff to prevail on wage claim	Court: Koopman did not prevail on wage claim; SDCL 60-11-24 fees not available to him

In re Estate of Neiswender, 616 N.W.2d 83 (S.D. 2000) (distinguishes express vs. implied contracts)
FB & I Bldg. Prods., Inc. v. Superior Truss & Components, 727 N.W.2d 474 (S.D. 2007) (where valid express contract fixes rights, no implied promise arises)
Harvey v. Reg'l Health Network, Inc., 906 N.W.2d 382 (S.D. 2018) (employment handbook may create implied contractual obligations in some circumstances)
Aberle v. City of Aberdeen, 718 N.W.2d 615 (S.D. 2006) (implied contract only when parties do not expressly agree)
Ziegler Furniture & Funeral Home, Inc. v. Cicmanec, 709 N.W.2d 350 (S.D. 2006) (contract interpretation governed by the parties’ language)
Long v. State, 904 N.W.2d 358 (S.D. 2017) (statutory authorization is required and strictly construed to award attorney fees)
Rupert v. City of Rapid City, 827 N.W.2d 55 (S.D. 2013) (court will not imply fee-shifting authority; requires clear legislative grant)