Pritchard-Sleath v. Montana Department of Public Health & Human Services
687 F. App'x 654
9th Cir.2017Background
- Elizabeth Pritchard-Sleath was employed at the Montana Development Center from April 2009 until her discharge in May 2011.
- She sued the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services under Montana’s Wrongful Discharge from Employment Act (WDEA), Mont. Code Ann. § 39-2-904, alleging retaliation and that the employer violated its written personnel policies.
- The District Court granted the Department partial summary judgment on the § 904(b) claim (discharge not for good cause), finding Sleath could not show the discharge “was not for good cause.”
- The District Court allowed Sleath’s § 904(a) (retaliation/refusal to violate public policy or reporting violations) and § 904(c) (violation of employer’s written personnel policy) claims to proceed to a jury.
- A jury found the Department violated the WDEA and awarded Sleath $244,239 in lost wages and fringe benefits.
- The Department appealed, arguing (1) the § 904(b) summary judgment finding that the discharge was for good cause precluded recovery under § 904(a) or (c), and (2) the court erred by permitting a retaliation instruction without identifying a specific public policy in the instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a grant of summary judgment on § 904(b) (discharge not for good cause) precludes separate claims under § 904(a) or (c) | Sleath contended § 904 provides three independent bases and prevailing on one is not barred by adverse finding on another | Department argued finding that discharge was for good cause as a matter of law bars recovery under the other subsections | Rejected. Montana law treats § 904(a)–(c) as three separate causes of action; adverse ruling on (b) does not preclude (a) or (c) claims |
| Whether jury instructions on retaliation must identify a specific statute or public policy | Sleath identified specific statutes/regulations in the record and argued no specific statutory identification was required in the instruction | Department argued the jury instruction was legally deficient because it failed to specify the public policy at issue | Rejected. Defendant failed to preserve an objection to the instruction and Montana cases do not require a particular statute be named in the instruction when the policy is identified in the record |
| Standard of review for legal issues raised on appeal | N/A | N/A | De novo review for legal issues; abuse of discretion for instruction formulation, but legal errors reviewed de novo |
| Whether the Department preserved appellate challenges based on Rule 50(b) absence | Sleath argued Department limited appealable issues by not moving under Rule 50(b) post-trial | Department sought relief on legal issues only and did not file Rule 50(b) motion | The appeal was limited to legal issues; Department cannot raise additional post-trial factual challenges |
Key Cases Cited
- F.B.T. Productions, LLC v. Aftermath Records, 621 F.3d 958 (9th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for legal issues on appeal)
- Chess v. Dovey, 790 F.3d 961 (9th Cir. 2015) (instruction challenges: abuse of discretion; legal misstatements reviewed de novo)
- Bird v. Lewis & Clark Coll., 303 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2002) (review standards for jury instructions)
- Plumhoff v. Rickard, 134 S. Ct. 2012 (U.S. 2014) (procedural limits when no Rule 50(b) motion filed)
- Unitherm Food Sys., Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., 546 U.S. 394 (U.S. 2006) (limitation of appellate issues where Rule 50(b) not filed)
- Motarie v. Northerne Montana Joint Refuse Disposal District, 274 Mont. 239 (Mont. 1995) (WDEA provides three independent bases for wrongful discharge)
- Krebs v. Ryan Oldsmobile, 255 Mont. 291 (Mont. 1992) (proof of any one § 904 element supports wrongful discharge action)
- Ritchie v. Town of Ennis, 320 Mont. 94 (Mont. 2004) (treating WDEA as providing three separate causes of action)