Williams v. PLUM CREEK TIMBER CO., INC., 2011 MT 271

Background

Ray Williams, a Plum Creek employee since 1988, was reassigned in 2006 when Plum Creek needed to reduce eight-hour production capacity at the Columbia Falls mill.
Reassignment used a written pre-transfer evaluation form scoring employees in discipline, versatility, attendance, and skill to select who would be transferred; Williams scored variably across categories.
Williams contested several scoring items (discipline, versatility, attendance, skill) as inaccurate or unfair; Plum Creek admitted some scoring errors, notably in attendance.
Reassigned Williams to Evergreen Plywood Mill on a 90-day probationary period as a plugger operator, a job he had no prior experience with, and he was terminated at the end of the probationary period for not meeting production standards.
Williams filed suit under Montana's Wrongful Discharge from Employment Act (WDEA); Plum Creek moved for summary judgment arguing there was good cause for the termination.
The district court granted summary judgment, ruling Williams was discharged for good cause, and Williams appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Williams' claim is cognizable under the WDEA	Williams contends the discharge violated his rights under the written policy and/or was linked to the demotion/transfer.	Plum Creek argues the transfer and subsequent termination were for good cause and not a wrongful discharge under the WDEA.	Dispute over whether WDEA governs this sequence; summary judgment improper because facts on policy and linkage are disputed.
Whether the pre-transfer evaluation form was part of Plum Creek's written personnel policy	The form may constitute a written policy; improper application could violate the policy and support wrongful discharge.	The form is not necessarily a formal policy; reassignment could be based on business needs.	There are disputed facts about whether the evaluation form is a written policy and whether it was applied consistently.
Whether Plum Creek violated its written personnel policy by demoting and transferring Williams	Williams was wrongfully demoted/transferred due to an allegedly faulty evaluation and inconsistent policy application.	The reassignment and probation were permissible business decisions and not governed by the written policy as interpreted.	This is a factual question unsuitable for summary judgment; disputed evidence about policy compliance exists.
Whether Williams' demotion/transfer was directly linked to his termination	The discharge followed from a wrongful demotion/transfer caused by policy violations.	Termination was for failing to meet production standards in the new role, independent of any policy violation.	There remains a material factual question about the linkage between demotion/transfer and termination.
Whether Williams was discharged for good cause or constructively discharged	The sequence of actions culminating in termination reflects wrongful discharge under WDEA.	Discharge (for poor performance) constitutes good cause or a non-constructive termination under WDEA.	The court finds potential wrongful discharge and that the district court erred in granting summary judgment; issues of fact remain.

Key Cases Cited

Pankratz Farms, Inc. v. Pankratz, 2004 MT 180 (Mont. 2004) (good cause and damages linked to later events; distinguishable when policy linkage exists)
Clark v. Eagle Systems, Inc., 279 Mont. 279 (Mont. 1996) (no termination; WDEA inapplicable where no discharge)
Kearney v. KXLF Communications, Inc., 263 Mont. 407 (Mont. 1994) (written policy may be proven through various writings; jury to determine policy existence)
Andrews v. Plum Creek Mfg., LP, 2001 MT 94 (Mont. 2001) (summary judgment inappropriate where issues of policy and demotion exist)
Hager v. J.C. Billion, Inc., 2008 MT 167 (Mont. 2008) (whether a demotion constitutes a discharge is a question for the jury)
McConkey v. Flathead Electric Co-op., 2005 MT 334 (Mont. 2005) (employer discretion exists but cannot violate written policy or good cause requirement)
Spinler v. Allen, 1999 MT 160 (Mont. 1999) (summary judgment inappropriate where factual disputes exist; jury function)