Tomlinson v. NCR Corporation
296 P.3d 760
Utah Ct. App.2013Background
- Termination May 5, 2005; NCR reported to police alleging theft and assault by Tomlinson, but no charges filed.
- Tomlinson had about ten years of NCR employment as a customer engineer.
- Tomlinson, pro se, filed a complaint April 9, 2009; amended complaint later.
- Trial court dismissed seven claims under rule 12(b)(6) but allowed two to proceed.
- NCR moved for summary judgment; court granted summary judgment on wrongful discharge and breach of the covenant; Tomlinson appealed.
- Court reversed in part and remanded in part, allowing claims related to implied contract and good faith covenant to proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do seven Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals stand on pleading adequacy or WC preemption? | Tomlinson argues pleadings adequate; some claims survive potential facts. | NCR contends claims inadequately pleaded or preempted by WC Act. | Dismissals upheld for inadequacy; some dismissed as preempted or failing to state claim. |
| Was there an implied contract limiting at-will termination based on the Manual? | Manual and policies create implied contract; core employee status matters. | Disclaimer and at-will language defeat implied contract. | Dispute of fact on core status; summary judgment reversed as to implied contract. |
| Did the policy disclaimer defeat the implied contract claim as a matter of law? | Disclaimer insufficient to negate implied contract given context. | Disclaimer clear and conspicuous; employment at will not limited. | Issue of fact; disclaimer not dispositive; judgment on implied contract should be permitted to proceed. |
| Did the Manual create a breach of the Good Faith Covenant? | If an implied contract exists, good faith covenant applies. | No implied contract; no breach of good faith. | Since implied contract issue survives, good faith claim not barred from trial. |
| Are negligence claims preempted by Workers’ Compensation Act or otherwise inadequately pleaded? | NCR breached duty in hiring/supervision; not barred. | WC Act preempts negligence; damages insufficient. | Court affirmed dismissal of some negligence claims but left door for further consideration depending on implied contract outcome. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mack v. Utah State Dep’t of Commerce, 221 P.3d 194 (2009 UT 47) (rule 12(b)(6) pleading standard; review for correctness)
- Sony Elecs., Inc. v. Reber, 103 P.3d 186 (2004 UT App 420) (review of dismissal under rule 12(b)(6))
- Johnson v. Morton Thiokol, Inc., 818 P.2d 997 (1991 Utah) (implied contract analysis in at-will context)
- Berube v. Fashion Ctr., Ltd., 771 P.2d 1033 (Utah 1989) (at-will disclaimer impact on implied terms)
- Hamilton v. Parkdale Care Ctr., Inc., 904 P.2d 1110 (Utah Ct. App. 1995) (disclaimer sufficiency to defeat implied contract when clearly at-will)
- Cabaness v. Thomas, 232 P.3d 486 (2010 UT 23) (implied-contract analysis from manual provisions; scope of at-will status)
- Mounteer v. Utah Power & Light Co., 823 P.2d 1055 (Utah 1991) (workers’ compensation exclusivity; carve-out for defamation, etc.)
- Helf v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 203 P.3d 962 (2009 UT 11) (intent to injure exception to WC Act preemption)