Leikvold v. Valley View Community Hospital

LEIKVOLD, Plaintiff-Appellant, Joan

VALLEY VIEW COMMUNITY HOSPI-

TAL, corporation; an Arizona Phoenix

Baptist Services, an Medical Arizona Allen,

corporation; and Andrew De-

fendants-Appellees.

1No. CA-CIV 5930. Arizona,

Court 1, Department D.

Division

June 1983.

Rehearing Sept. Denied 1983. Granted

Review Nov. Becker, Becker,

Farrer & P.C. Mathis City, Sun plaintiff-appellant. Jones, Skelton by & Hochuli Don placed C. Ste- in paper position for her and II, Phoenix, vens for defendants-appellees. possible that it would not be her to operating

transfer back to the She room. him if asked that meant that she should be OPINION looking job replied “If I another and he MEYERSON, Judge. you, I were would be.” Leikvold subse- appeal This rapidly changing involvеs the quently request withdrew her for transfer area employment law. We are asked to ultimately but she was fired. hold that in a employment, contract of in- file, personnel In Leikvold’s the reason duration, definite as to employee its given for her was “insubordina- prove nevertheless however, deposition, tion.” In Allen’s he personnel manual сonstitutes the terms and testified that the of her causes termination conditions of parties did (1) request were to become a subordi- not have a formal holding management nate after a position limiting the circumstances under which the (2) and operating supervisor room employee discharged. could be For the position was not аvailable. There is noth- stated, however, reasons hereinafter ing in the suggest record to that Leikvold’s employee is not proving foreclosed from job performance way was unsatis- that she only could for cause factory. in accordance with the manual. The facts in this are as follows.

II. THE PERSONNEL MANUAL I. FACTS Although parties did not execute a Plаintiff-appellant Joan Leikvold has written contract of when registered been a nurse since 1954. She hired, Leikvold through was the dura- operating became the supervisor room tion of her employment, Valley View had in defendant-appellee Valley Community effect a manual describing “administrative Hospital View) (Valley 1972 and poliсies.” According to her promoted she was nursing. director of affidavit, response attached to her to Val- holding job approximately After ley View’s summary judgment, motion for year, one operating she learned that given she was copy of the manual when supervisor longer room no desired to con- she was hired and was told that the policies position. tinue in that Because Leikvold contained therein were to be followed dur- enjoyed the field of surgery, she decided to ing hospital. She seek a transfer position from her di- as stated that she was led to believe nursing position rector of back to the hospital administration that the manual operating supervisоr. room contract be- tween the employees. and its Dur- time, defendant-appellee At about that ing her nursing, tenure as the director of position Andrew Allen assumed the of chief ‍​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​​​​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​​‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​​‍repeatedly the manual was referred to at executive officer of View. Al- department meetings reflecting poli- though request Leikvold’s for a transfer cies which were be followed the case was made before Allen moved to View, termination. The manual is in ultimately he became the loose-leaf form so that “can upon request. official who acted Leik- bring up policies it whenever date are meetings vold and Allen had several with revised.” The manual contains sectiоns on regard meetings, to the transfer. At these salaries, benefits, wages working expressed judgment Allen his that con- it ditions, inappropriate job opportunities, personal prob- for someone to transfer from lems, rules,” greater authority “important to one of and termination authority. ultimately policies. deposition lesser Leikvold wаs Allen testified guide- informed had advertisement been that in set forth his view the manual ignore lines and that he was free to ment contract even in an rela- the manual if he chose. tionship which is otherwise terminable at Second, good-faith will. she Leikvold contends that her vio- dealing require- between lated the terms of the manual in and, ment even under an at will contract First, respects. several she contends that particularly, hospital may more not dis- no effort help adjust was made to her charge supervisory its chief nurse in an provides work situation. The manual arbitrary capricious manner. Because that the will “every make effort contention, agree we with Leikvold’s first help employee adjust ... himself to we do not reach the second Second, issue. pur- work.” she contends that suant to the terms of the manual she could only be for unsatisfactory ser- IV. LAW significant vice. This is her allega- most many Arizona is one of states which provides tion. The manual any that if em- follows the common law rule that either ployee’s work “should be considered unsat- party may employment-at-will terminate an isfactory during the first three months of time, any any contract at reason. Dan right reserves the Co., 320, iel v. Magma Copper 127 Ariz. to discontinue his services without notice.” (Ct.App.1980); 620 P.2d 699 Larsen v. Mo Third, she provides that the manual Co., 507, tor Supply 117 Ariz. 573 P.2d 907 right for a and a and that (Ct.App.1977). prior decision, No Arizona procedural these rights were not afforded however, has considered whether in an em to her. The manual employ- states that an ployment ‍​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​​​​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​​‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​​‍contract indefinite duration ee “who aggrieved feels ... by the terms lacking express limiting terms the em discharge of the may appeal to Administra- ployer’s right to relationship, terminate the

tion, granted and will be hearing.” employer’s may part nevertheless become of the terms and III. CONTENTIONS THE OF PARTIES conditions of employment.1 Although vir complaint Leikvold filed her in two tually all states follow the common law (1) alleging counts vio- rule, absolute adherence employ to the Valley lated policies and ment-at-will doctrine has become increas (2) Valley defamation. View filed a motion ingly throughout disfavored the United contending that the Olsen, generally States. Wrongful See employment contract parties between the Discharge by Claims Raised Em At-Will and, event, was at any terminable will ployees: Legal A New Concern for Em Valley complied with all administra- ployers, (1981); Comment, 32 Lab.L.J. 265 personnel procedures. tive and Protecting Employees Against At Will argued defamatory View also that no state- Wrongful Discharge: Duty to Termi ments about Leikvold were Judg- made. Only Faith, nate in Good 93 Harv.L.Rev. ment entered in favor of (1980); Annot., 1816 12 A.L.R. 4th 544 brought and Leikvold appeal. Leik- (1982). One of several exceptions which appeals vold relating issues to the emerged has is the situation such as we employment relationship and has aban- have before employer us—where the has doned contention that Allen’s state- adopted personnel manual. defamatory. ments were appeal, On For example, Leikvold raises two issues. Toussaint v. Blue Cross First, Shield, she contends thаt an per- 579, and Blue 408 Mich. 292 may part sonnel manual employ- of the (1980), N.W.2d provided 880 Toussaint was held, however, 1979). 1. We have that the terms of a We have also held that administrative may teacher's written contract include the rules part employ- manuals become of a written regulations of the school district. Haver- ment contract. Scоttsdale School District v. Cf. 3, Tempe Elementary land v. School Dist. No. Clark, 321, Ariz.App. 20 122 595 P.2d (Ct.App. Ariz. 1034 with a manual which “reinforced infer from the facts in plaintiff’s job the oral security. assurance of It stat- affidavit, when whole, taken as a ed disciplinary procedures applied these statements the handbook were in- to all employees Blue Cross whо had com- tended and by considered both to be pleted probationary period their and that it of the plaintiff’s terms of original ‘policy’ company to release contract of employment.” Id. Id. just ‘for cause only.’ See, P.2d at 359. e.g., Wagner Sperry 598-99, 292 N.W.2d at 884. Toussaint had Univac, Division Sperry Corp., Rand employed been years Blue Cross five F.Supp. (E.D.Pa.1978); 519-21 discharged; when he was he contended Pine River Mettille, State Bank v. violated the Blue ‍​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​​​​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​​‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​​‍Cross (Minn.Sup.Ct.1983); N.W.2d 622 Piacitelli employment policy expressed per- its v. Southern Utah College, State 636 P.2d A jury sonnel manual. found in favor of (Utah 1981); contra Mau v. Omaha Toussaint, appeals but the court of re- Bank, National 308, 207 Neb. 299 N.W.2d Michigan Supreme versed. The Court held (1980). 147 as follows: Two recent decisions particularly per are Although Toussaint’s term, highest suasive. New for an York’s court indefinite the recent could find relationship ly recognized was not terminable that an at-will at the will of Blue Cross. Blue subject Cross to the terms of the had company established a policy to dis- employer’s personnel рolicies. Weiner v. charge just for only, pursuant cause to McGraw-Hill, Inc., 458, 57 N.Y.2d 457 N.Y. procedures, certain policy had made that 193, (1982). S.2d 443 N.E.2d 441 Weiner Toussaint, known to thereby had left a employer with another committed discharge itself to him join upon reliance the McGraw-Hill com just for compliance cause in pany policy employeеs not to terminate procedures. were, thus, There on this “just Leikvold, without cause.” Like Ms. separate alone, special basis circumstanc- McGraw-Hill, employed while at rejected he es sufficient to overcome the presump- addition, other offers of In tive construction that the contract was affidavit, according to Weiner’s “on several terminable at will. occasions when he recommended that cer employer We hold that statements of dismissed, tain of his subordinates be he policy, such as the Blue Supervi- Cross supervisors pro instructed sory Guidelines, Manual and give can compliance ceed strict with the handbook rights employees rise to contractual manuals____” Id. at policy 465-66, without evidence that the mutual- 197, 457 N.Y.S.2d at 443 N.E.2d at 445. ly agreed policy the statements eight years job, After on suddenly “he rights would create ‍​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​​​​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​​‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​​‍contractual in the discharged found himself for ‘lack appli employee____ 461, Id. at 195, cation.’ 457 N.Y.S.2d at 6.14-15, Id. at 292 N.W.2d at 892. . 443 N.E.2d at 443 v. Democrat-Herald Pub- In Yartzoff Relying upon general principles of con- Co., lishing 281 Or. 576 P.2d 356 law, tract the court concluded that an (1978), Oregon Supreme Court reversed “agreement employer on of an not entered favor of employee except ‘good to dismiss an employer wrongful in an action only’ and sufficient cause ... does not cre- discharge. The contended that at will.” Id. ate an ineluctable she was in contravention of the upon Based circumstances his em- company’s policy person- as contained in its ployment, the court concluded that Weiner provided nel handbook which that termina- jury. was entitled to take his case to the tion unsatisfactory perform- would be for way: ance. The court The court held that if framed issue “Was thе case “were jury, reasonably submitted to a employer] promise it could not to bound to [the

579 be fol- policies will that certain just and suffi- resentation without [Weiner] cause____” part of on the a reliance cient Id. lowed creates such expectation that and an quite In a case similar to the one fairly en- uniformly and policies will be us, before the California Court forced. incorrectly granted held that the trial court with- policies is not against suing adoption a nurse of such a directed verdict The employer. wrongful discharge. Walker Northern benefit to the significant out a District, Diego County Hospital orderly, coopera- 135 San employer The “secures аn ____” (1982). Cal.App.3d Cal.Rptr. Tous- loyal work force tive and Mich, employed nurse of ‍​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​​​​​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​​​‌​​​​‌​‌‌​​​‍Walker was as the head at 892. saint, 292 N.W.2d hospital’s supply central section. She Indeed, affidavit Ms. Leikvold brought contending wrongful suit she was Valley View that she remained at ly discharged without cause and without a be- up opportunities to work “passed other provided for in the em stability of her cause of the ployment ____” handbook. contend is, course, that a law It hornbook period ed that the contract for an indefinite consid- promisor to the is sufficient benefit party. was terminable at the will of either E.g., Mus- support eration to contract. Welch, Ariz. tang Equipment, Inc. v. Although the relevant section of the (1977); v. Bill times, 564 P.2d 895 McGrath handbook was amended several Inc., Ariz. Properties, Johnston the time of Walker’s Golf App. your performance stated: “If un- overall satisfactory, Hospital the reserves the general principles, Under contract right employment any to terminate time expressly but contract need not be probationary period.” the within Id. at or may implied by promisor’s the words Cal.Rptr. at 621. the Prom this surrounding circum light conduct in of court concluded: Neely, 93 Ariz. stances. See Smith v. language implies employee This once an (1963); generally 380 P.2d see successfully completes probationary the §§ Corbin, on 561- 3 A. Corbin Contracts period, hospital] longer no has an [the Here, only Vallеy 72A we have not right employ- unfettered to the conduct, an actual View’s words but ee. By writing which indicates its intentions. Id. The court went on to hold that the personnel procedures, establishing these handbook, provisions “clearly consti- employees to Valley encourages its employment.” the terms of Id. tute^] them, carrying in out rely upon not The court that the held trier of fact “had accepting employ in jobs, their but also duty the to determine the existence or non- in instance. ment the first express implied existence of an or an promise for fact some form of continued Thus, employ that in an we hold firing.” absent cause for Id. duration, an relationship ment of indefinite Cal.Rptr. at 622. manual or handbook employer’s personnel employ may the terms of the constitute inconsistency no our We find between And, although there no is ment contract. holdings that an relation- prior formal, limiting the em agreement will, written term one at ship for an indefinite employee, ployer’s right to an foregoing permit which decisions to exist under the limitations be found employee prove to an not personnel manual. We do terms of a manual of the con- became will, un suggest that a employment. These decisions tract of circumstances, part of the become recognize employer’s rep- der all properly hospital reserves policy "If months of is almost identical. work, however, without right his services employee’s be con- discontinue should unsatisfactory during the first three notice.” sidered proceedings This issue must the trial court for further con- opinion. sistent with this necessarily case-by-case be decided on a basis. EUBANK, P.J., Acting concurs. that, event, argues any it FROEB, Judge, dissenting: complied provisiоns person- of its discharging nel manual in Ms. Leikvold. “part if the Even handbook is The it contends that did not violate contract,” appellant’s employment appel- provides the section of the manual which showing has made no lant this case that “every help effort is made to an Appellant em- argues it was violated. that sec- observed, ployee adjust himself tion nine was provides, to his work”3 be- not which “every help effort is made to cause Ms. Leikvold never asked for adjust himself to his work.” This is anot counseling help adjust or assistance to promise reasonably susceptible of enforce- nursing. to her as director of Next, appellant ment. argues that her ter- further thе manual mination was not based on one of the rea- right affords no the fact of dis- sons for termination set forth in the hand- charge, but is rather limited to the “terms”' book, although nothing there is to indicate discharge. grounds Last, set forth are exclusive. issue, As the most crucial whether appellant gave contends the handbook Leikvold could be terminаted without right to a which was dismissal cause, Valley View contends that there is denied, yet language used would allow nothing in the manual which “indicates or challenge only to the “terms” but not the gives any inference that the employee can propriety my opinion, of dismissal. In only be terminated for unsatisfactory ser- genuine there is no issue of material fact above, vice — But as explained presented here justify which would operative language Valley View’s manu- appellee trial over whether breached terms quite al is similar to the handbook in Walk- set forth requirement er where a of cause for termi- manual. I judgment. would affirm the nation was found to exist.

Because primary basis of Val motion,

ley argument

was its employment-at- precluded claim, will doctrine Leikvold’s we P.2d cannot determine whether the trial court Arizona, Appellee, of STATE attempted interpret provisions these interpreta manual. The GARCIA, Appellant. Robert Alvarez provisions tion of the of the manual is a question of law for the trial It court. will No. CA-CR 6836. free to consider extrinsic evidence if it Arizona, Court ambiguous. finds the manual to be Once 1, Department Division A. “meaning” language of man April 1984. established, question ual is it becomes a Sept. Review Denied 1984. complied. fact whether reasons, foregoing summary

For the

judgment entered in favor of

is reversed and this matter is remanded to McGraw-Hill, Inc., employer complied in Weiner v. with determine whether the handbook provision. contained a similar The court held provision. employee was entitled to have the

Case Details

Case Name: Leikvold v. Valley View Community Hospital

Court Name: Court of Appeals of Arizona

Date Published: Nov 1, 1983

Citation: 688 P.2d 201

Docket Number: 1 CA-CIV 5930

Court Abbreviation: Ariz. Ct. App.