*1 my doctrine.” In view there is no as the transplant need for a
planted good covenant of the seed for the by enacting
faith 57A-1-203. The
Restatement recognizes Contracts obligation and fair deal- Re-
ing every which arises in contract. (Second)
statement Contracts § It is the doc- foreign soil
trine which is on when it is
superimposed onto an relation-
ship justified expecta- ten where continued have arisen.
Blote, supra. For these reasons, I would summary judgment
reverse breach of contract and employment. JOHNSON,
Philip L.
KREISER’S, INC., Keith Brown and Ha- Appellees.
rold Defendants
Supreme South Dakota. Court of March
Considered on Briefs *2 against Kreiser’s,
Johnson filed suit Lar- son, wrongful and Brown for termination. complaint, In his Johnson claimed he was discharged solely because he refused to corporation proper- allow Larson to convert ty his personal own use. Johnson al- leged that employment termination of his for this reason violates and is contrary allege to law. Johnson did not Falls, Burke, plaintiff John E. Sioux any type employment existence of appellant. and any promise employment contract or Wilka, Falls, Thomas K. Sioux for de- specified term. appellees; Haverly, fendants and Rita D. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss Falls, Sioux on brief. complaint pursuant Johnson’s 15- SDCL 6-12(b)(5) (failure upon to state a claim HENDERSON, Justice. granted). They argued which relief can be Philip appeals judg- L. Johnson from a 60-4-4, that under SDCL Johnson’s em- dismissing complaint ment for failure to ployment lawfully could be terminated at- upon state a claim which relief can be will, thereby precluding a cause of action granted. We reverse. wrongful termination. The trial court
agreed and complaint. dismissed the
FACTS complaint, In his Johnson the fol- ISSUE lowing began working facts: Johnson Did the dismissing trial court err in John- Kreiser’s, (Kreiser’s) Inc. in 1979 as the complaint son’s grounds on the that he Along company accountant. with his nor- failed to state a claim for termi- duties, accounting respon-
mal Johnson was nation? properly charging corporate sible to the any personal paid by officers bills the cor- poration; personal these bills included ex- DECISION penses charged corporation on the credit purposes pursu For of a motion country According card at clubs. 15-6-12(b)(5), ant complaint to SDCL Johnson, president Harold and light to be in construed most favorable Kreiser’s, chairman regu- board at pleading party, pled” facts “well larly corporation property converted to his true, may accepted be and doubts are personal own For use. Larson pleader. Pleadings resolved in favor of the picked up corporation’s post mail at merely should not be dismissed because the Saturdays office on and extracted checks court entertains doubts as to whether the customers; sent Larson then cashed the action, pleader prevail in the as this is destroyed checks for his use and own proof, pleadings. a matter of The rules customers’ one invoices. On occasion Lar- procedure favor the resolution of cases corporation son withdrew from a $1200 upon summary judg merits trial or use, savings personal account for his ment rather failed or inartful accu
he also told Johnson to transfer the titles
Press,
sations.
Viking
Janklow v.
corporation
of vehicles from the
to Larson.
N.W.2d 875
Beginning in
Larson became critical
charging
Johnson’s actions
these and
Johnson concedes that he was an at-will
However,
expenses against
personal
employee.
argues
other
Larson’s
he
2, 1987,
Brown,
account.
remedy
On March
Keith
should
Kreiser’s,
manager
at
partic-
terminat- when he is
for refusal to
ipate
ed Johnson’s
corporate
with the consent
in a
officer’s fraudulent
approval
agree.
of Larson.
schemes. We
jurisdictions
The
“An em
Dakota.
at-will doctrine.
clearly defined in South
2).
(footnote
having
specified
no
term
ployment
party
of either
...”
terminated
foregoing
findWe
cases to be
Osterkamp
v. Alkota
60-4-4.
persuasive
hereby adopt
pub
a narrow
Mfg.,
lic
to the at-will doctrine.
for the
in a
upheld
plaintiff
court
a verdict
*3
employee
An
a cause of
has
action
discharge
when the em
action
wrongful discharge
the
dis
employer
when
its own termination
failed to follow
ployer
charges him in
retaliation for
refusal to
employee handbook.
stated in the
rules
a
unlawful
It is
commit
criminal or
act.
employment contract
when there is no
But
public policy
to
to
repugnant
expect an
employment, and the
specified term of
employee to commit such acts in order to
procedures for
employer has no established
job. Consequently,
out
save his
we carve
the
discharging employees,
exception
the at-will doctrine codi
to
the
un
employer
of
terminable
so,
doing
In
fied at SDCL 60-4-4.
we
v.
60-4-4. Blote
First Federal
der SDCL
wrong
that a contract action for
conclude
(S.D.
Ass’n,
this narrow
and our
holdings Osterfcamp, supra,
regarding
SPEARFISH,
CITY OF
Defendant
employee handbooks and
Larson Kreis-
Appellee.
er’s, Inc.,
under the judgment
at-will doctrine. The of the trial
court is reversed and case remanded proceedings opin consistent with this
ion.
WUEST, C.J., and MORGAN and
MILLER, JJ., concur. J.,
SABERS, specially. concurs
SABERS, (specially concurring). Justice applaud recognition
I of the
policy exception to specially
doctrine. I write to add that re-
versal could also be on employ- based the implied
er’s breach of covenant dealing, fair and that such should recognized in my prior this state. See
writings Gear, in Breen v. Dakota (S.D.1988), French v. Dell
Rapids Community Hospital, 432 N.W.2d (S.D.1988), Larson v. Kreiser’s Ass’n,
Blote v. First Federal Sav. & Loan The ma- that,
jority states “A contract action is predicated implied breach
provision that an dis-
charge per-
form a criminal or (empha- unlawful act.” added).
sis Similarly, contract action is predicated will not dis- in bad faith.