Town of Cheswold v. Vann
9 A.3d 467
| Del. | 2010Background
- May 24, 2005 public hearing held to determine just cause for Vann's termination; mayor listed 15 reasons; Vann was fired the next day
- Vann appealed to Superior Court on multiple grounds including due process, contract, implied covenant, defamation, and Whistleblowers' Act
- This Court's Vann II reversed a Superior Court ruling on due process and remanded; on remand the Superior Court found just cause
- Vann II affirmance of the just-cause determination did not preclude whistleblower claims; three remaining claims went to trial
- May 15, 2008 Cheswold moved for summary judgment on remaining claims; summary judgment granted on breach of contract but denied on three others; four-day trial ensued
- Jury verdict: Vann won on all three remaining claims—$1 for defamation, $244,000 for breach of the implied covenant, and $45,000 for the Whistleblowers' Act
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Vann II precludes Whistleblowers' Act claims | Vann II does not preclude these claims | Vann II precludes them as issue preclusion on termination | Vann II does not preclude the Whistleblowers' Act claims |
| Whether the denial of a new trial on damages was proper | Damages supported by record; not inconsistent with Vann II | Verdict inconsistent with Vann II findings on 'just cause' | Denial of new trial not an abuse of discretion; damages supported by evidence |
| Whether the damages award was clearly erroneous (punitive vs compensatory) | Damages compensatory; evidence showed loss of earnings and future earnings potential | Award improperly punitive and excessive | Damages were compensatory; not clearly erroneous; not punitive in nature |
Key Cases Cited
- Vann v. Town of Cheswold (Vann II), 945 A.2d 1118 (Del. 2008) (does not foreclose whistleblower claims; affirming related issues on just cause)
- Wilhelm v. Ryan, 903 A.2d 745 (Del. 2006) (standards for evaluating implied covenant claims and related due process issues)
- Storey v. Camper, 401 A.2d 458 (Del. 1979) (abuse-of-discretion standard for new trial rulings)
- Mercedes-Benz of N. Am., Inc. v. Gershman's Things to Wear, Inc., 596 A.2d 1358 (Del. 1991) (deference to jury verdicts requiring substantial evidence)
- City Investing Co. Liquidating Trust v. Continental Cas. Co., 624 A.2d 1191 (Del. 1993) (de novo review of legal principles on appeal)