Richard T. Wright v. Ada County
376 P.3d 58
Idaho2016Background
- Richard T. Wright was Ada County’s Director of the Department of Administration and was terminated on January 15, 2013; his termination letter said the position was eliminated due to reorganization.
- Wright had two FMLA leave applications pending; Human Resources received his provider certification on the termination date and commissioners learned of the FMLA request after the termination. Commissioners extended salary/benefits through the end of Wright’s requested leave (end of February).
- Wright sued alleging violation of Idaho’s Whistleblower Act (retaliation for participation in internal investigations), FMLA interference, and later added negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims.
- The district court granted Ada County summary judgment on all claims: finding Wright had not engaged in protected whistleblowing (investigations were only policy matters), no FMLA interference (no notice/causal link and county accommodated leave), and no emotional distress claim (no duty breach beyond at-will termination).
- Idaho Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment on the FMLA claim, reversed/vacated summary judgment on the Whistleblower Act and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims, and remanded for further proceedings. Costs awarded to Wright.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of Whistleblower Act § 6-2104(2): whether "investigation" must concern waste or legal violations | Wright: § 6-2104(2) protects participation in any investigation; he participated (hired investigator, provided info) | Ada County: subsection should be read consistent with Act purpose—investigations must relate to waste or law/rule/regulation violations | Court: "investigation" construed broadly; subsection (2) contains no waste/violation limitation, so participation in any official investigation is protected; summary judgment for Ada County reversed on this claim |
| FMLA interference | Wright: employer liability may be found regardless of intent; close timing and termination interfered with his FMLA rights | Ada County: commissioners lacked notice of FMLA request when termination decision made and later accommodated leave by extending benefits | Court: affirmed summary judgment for Ada County — interference requires employer had sufficient notice and prejudice; here commissioners lacked notice and accommodated the leave; plaintiff’s speculation about future recertification insufficient |
| Negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) based on termination | Wright: county breached duty created by Whistleblower Act and NIED claim can proceed independently | Ada County: Whistleblower Act was not intended to create tort liability; at-will termination alone does not breach duty | Court: because Whistleblower claim survives, the statute creates a duty and does not preclude independent NIED claims; summary judgment on NIED reversed and remanded |
| Attorney fees (district court denial; appeal fees) | Wright: seeks fees under Whistleblower Act provisions if he prevails | Ada County: seeks fees under other statutory provisions | Court: did not decide fees because Whistleblower and NIED rulings vacated and no prevailing party on appeal; remand may consider fees if Wright prevails |
Key Cases Cited
- Van v. Portneuf Med. Ctr., 147 Idaho 552, 212 P.3d 982 (Idaho 2009) (Whistleblower Act standards and prima facie framework)
- Curlee v. Kootenai Cnty. Fire & Rescue, 148 Idaho 391, 224 P.3d 458 (Idaho 2009) (broad construction of "investigation" under whistleblower context)
- Bollinger v. Fall River Rural Elec. Co-op., Inc., 152 Idaho 632, 272 P.3d 1263 (Idaho 2012) (elements of negligent infliction of emotional distress)
- Ragsdale v. Wolverine World Wide, Inc., 535 U.S. 81 (U.S. 2002) (FMLA requires showing of prejudice for relief)
- Sanders v. City of Newport, 657 F.3d 772 (9th Cir. 2011) (FMLA interference: employer intent irrelevant to liability but notice required)
- Bachelder v. Am. W. Airlines, Inc., 259 F.3d 1112 (9th Cir. 2001) (DOL regulation deference; employer good faith relevant to damages, not liability)
- Verska v. Saint Alphonsus Reg'l Med. Ctr., 151 Idaho 889, 265 P.3d 502 (Idaho 2011) (statutory interpretation: courts must follow plain statutory text and not insert omitted language)