Sullivan v. Continental Construction of Montana, LLC
2013 MT 106
| Mont. | 2013Background
- Sullivan, a Montana supervisor, was terminated by Continental Construction in Oct 2010 after employee complaints about his conduct, attendance, and management style.
- Continental Construction operates from Florida; executives in Florida supervised Sullivan in Montana.
- Interviews were conducted with Montana employees by Montana administrator Wallace and Florida/office personnel, with notes shared up the chain.
- Termination letter cited demeaning conduct, excessive absences, and failure to meet company standards.
- Continental asserted a legitimate business reason for termination; Sullivan sued under WDEA alleging wrongful discharge.
- District court granted Continental’s summary judgment; Sullivan appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Continental had good cause to terminate Sullivan | Sullivan; no genuine issue of fact; lacks good cause | Continental; there was a legitimate business reason | Yes; substantial discretion to terminate, based on managerial misconduct |
| Whether hearsay evidence was improperly used to decide termination | Sullivan; relies on hearsay from employees | Continental; hearsay admissible for business judgment | No; hearsay allowed as basis for business decision under Moats framework |
| Whether hearsay evidence was improperly used to assess good cause | Sullivan; should require truth of allegations | Continental; focus on non-arbitrary business decision | No; court considers the information as basis for a legitimate business reason |
| Whether Continental violated its handbook by failing to provide two warnings | Sullivan; handbook requires two warnings before termination | Continental; handbook allows immediate termination for serious misconduct | No; handbook permits immediate termination for listed conduct and serious violations |
Key Cases Cited
- Buck v. Billings Mont. Chevrolet, Inc., 248 Mont. 276, 811 P.2d 537 (Mont. 1981) (employer discretion in selecting managerial personnel; legitimate business reason)
- McConkey v. Flathead Elec. Coop., 330 Mont. 48, 125 P.3d 1121 (Mont. 2005) (employer discretion in managerial decisions; termination for unsatisfactory performance permissible)
- Moats Trucking Co. v. Gallatin Dairies, 231 Mont. 474, 753 P.2d 883 (Mont. 1988) (hearsay may be considered when evaluating business rationale)
- Marcy v. Delta Airlines, 166 F.3d 1279 (9th Cir. 1999) (pretext/mistake analysis not required to re-litigate truth of allegations)