Brooks v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., Civ. A. No. 82-K-1185.
Decision Date | 18 October 1983 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 82-K-1185. |
Citation | 574 F. Supp. 805 |
Parties | David M. BROOKS, Plaintiff, v. TRANS WORLD AIRLINES, INC., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Colorado |
Michael P. Serruto, Myrick & Newton, P.C., Denver, Colo., for plaintiff.
Elliot H. Shaller, New York City, Edward W. Stern, Denver, Colo., for defendants.
Plaintiff's first amended complaint states six claims for relief, chief among which is his claim that TWA furloughed him in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 626(b), 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Jurisdiction is predicated upon 29 U.S.C. § 626(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1137. The remaining five claims seek damages and injunctive relief for breach of contract, negligence, fraud, negligent misrepresentation and wrongful discharge. From the record before me, I find the following prolusory facts.
Brooks first accepted employment with TWA in 1962 in California. At the time, his employment application included the following language:
Brooks transferred to Colorado in 1976 where he worked as a customer service agent, a non-management position. In 1977, Brooks became an Agent in Charge — Cargo, still based in Denver. He received a management title on February 26, 1979, when he accepted a promotion to the position of Senior Sales Representative (SSR). In large part, Brooks was responsible for the solicitation of cargo space in a three state region encompassing Colorado, and parts of Wyoming and New Mexico.
In late 1979, TWA abolished the SSR position, provided Brooks with a week's worth of additional training, and gave him a new job number and title, Account Manager—Cargo (AMC). Brooks received no "promotion" or pay raise as such with the new position: he continued to be paid $2,000 per month. The new position, however, did carry a higher pay grade than the old. In October, 1981, Brooks was informed that his position would be eliminated and that he would be furloughed. At the time, the MP & P contained the following displacement clause:
An employee occupying a management position which is eliminated and who does not qualify under Paragraph 4.a. preceding, will be permitted to exercise seniority to displace into the LAST HELD nonmanagement position in the metropolitan area, seniority permitting, IF THE EMPLOYEE ENTERED THE MANAGEMENT POSITION DIRECTLY FROM A NONCONTRACT NONMANAGEMENT POSITION.
MP & P, § 10.49.02C4(b), (emphasis in original). TWA refused to permit Brooks to return to his earlier position of Agent in Charge—Cargo. TWA reasoned that Brooks had not entered the Account Manager position directly from a non-management position, as required by the MP & P. TWA told Brooks that he had entered the management position from another management position, Senior Sales Representative, and thus could not exercise his rights under the displacement provision. Before Brooks left TWA's employ, he "oriented" a 27 year old account manager to assist him in taking over 80% of Brook's sales territory.
Before me are cross-motions for summary judgment on Count II (breach of contract), TWA's motion for summary judgment on counts I, III and IV, as well as Brook's motion in limine. For the reasons discussed below, I deny the cross-motions for summary judgment and the motion in limine. I also deny in part and grant in part TWA's motion for summary judgment.
TWA makes two arguments in support of its motion. First, it asserts that its own personnel manual creates no contractual rights which are enforceable against it. Second, it claims that Brooks did not enter his "management position as Account Manager — Cargo directly from a non-contract nonmanagement classification," within the meaning of the MP & P.
The plaintiff claims that TWA is estopped to deny that the MP & P creates contract rights, since Brooks, when he was furloughed, was told only that the MP & P did not permit him to displace. Brooks also argues that the MP & P creates enforceable contract rights in his favor.
28 Am.Jur.2d Estoppel § 72. (Emphasis added.)
It has long been the rule, in this state and others, that a discharged employee has no recourse against his or her employer in the absence of a fixed term contract, unlawful discrimination or a specific constitutional right. Justice v. Stanley Aviation Corp., 35 Colo.App. 1, 530 P.2d 984 (1974); Amaan v. City of Eureka, 615 S.W.2d 414 (Mo.1981); Johnson v. National Beef Packing Company, 220 Kan. 52, 551 P.2d 779 (1976); Lynas v. Maxwell Farms, 279 Mich. 684, 273 N.W. 315 (1937); Knudson v. Green, 116 Fla. 47, 156 So. 240 (1934); Martin v. New York Life Ins. Co., 148 N.Y. 117, 42 N.E. 416 (1895). The rule is said to have its origin as "an adjunct to the law of master and servant in England. ..." Wiener v. McGraw Hill, Inc., 57 N.Y.2d 458, 457 N.Y.S.2d 193, 195, 443 N.E.2d 441, 443 (1982); Feiger, "Employment at Will" and the Discharged Employee in Colorado, 12 Colo.Lwyr. 733 (1983).
Judicial reluctance to interfere with "at-will" contracts stems from a perceived lack of definiteness, mutuality and consideration. Johnson v. National Beef Packing Co., 551 P.2d at 782; Pine River State Bank v. Mettille, 333 N.W.2d 622, 628 (Minn.1983). In a recent decision from Florida, the district court of appeals said:
we see no justification to depart from long established principles that an employment contract requires definiteness and certainty in its terms. An employee's entitlement to a particular term of employment or to particular salary levels on the basis of criteria more subject to misunderstanding and dispute than definite terms in an employment contract is not ... within the province of a court of law.
Muller v. Stromberg Carlson Corp., 427 So.2d 266, 269 (Fla.App. 2 Dist.1983).
In the past 50 years, however, courts have shown an increased willingness to step between employer and employee. They have typically either recognized actions for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 27 Cal.3d 167, 164 Cal.Rptr. 839, 610 P.2d 1330 (1980), a covenant of good faith in employment contracts, Cleary v. American Airlines, Inc., 111 Cal.App.3d 443, 168 Cal.Rptr. 722 (1980), or found an implied contract in a personnel manual or an employer's specific policies. Toussaint v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, 408 Mich. 579, 292 N.W.2d 880 (1980). It is only the latter theory of implied contract with which this case is concerned.
292 N.W.2d at 885. The Toussaint rationale has been followed in an impressive number of jurisdictions.1 It has also been criticized and several courts have specifically refused to follow it.2
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Barger v. General Elec. Co., Civ. A. No. 83-0167-L.
...168 Cal.Rptr. 722 (1980) and Pugh v. See's Candies, Inc., 116 Cal.App.3d 311, 171 Cal.Rptr. 917 (1981); Colorado, Brooks v. Trans World Airlines, 574 F.Supp. 805 (D.Colo.1983) and Corbin v. Sinclair Marketing, Inc., 684 P.2d 265 (Colo. App.1984); District of Columbia, Eller v. Houston's Res......
-
Certified Question, In re
...Bank, 3 IER Cases 1476 (Ariz.1988); Cleary v. American Airlines, 111 Cal.App.3d 443, 168 Cal.Rptr. 722 (1980); Brooks v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 574 F.Supp. 805 (D.Colo.1983) (applying Colorado law); Continental Air Lines, Inc. v. Keenan, 731 P.2d 708 (Colo.1987); Lincoln v. Sterling Dr......
-
Whitten v. Farmland Industries, Inc.
...781 F.2d 173, 177 (10th Cir.1986); Eivens v. Adventist Health Sys., 660 F.Supp. 1255, 1258 (D.Kan.1988); Brooks v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 574 F.Supp. 805, 811 (D.Colo.1983). In the context of a reduction-in-force (hereinafter "RIF"), an employer terminates employees, but the discharged......
-
Swanson v. Liquid Air Corp.
...302 N.W.2d 307 (1981)); accord, Helle v. Landmark, Inc., 15 Ohio App.3d 1, 10, 472 N.E.2d 765, 775 (1984). In Brooks v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 574 F.Supp. 805 (D.Colo.1983), the employee signed an application form including an agreement that he understood that he could be terminated at......
-
Keenan v. Continental Airlines: Employee Handbooks and Employment at Will in Colorado
...regarding Colorado's readiness to modify the "at will" employment doctrine so as to afford discharged employees greater rights). 21. 574 F.Supp. 805 (D.Colo. 1983). 22. Id. 23. 684 P.2d 264 (Colo.App. 1984). 24. Id. at 265. 25. 634 P.2d 265 (Colo.App. 1984). 26. Id. at 267. 27. Garcia, supr......
-
Punitive Damages in Wrongful Discharge Cases
...See, Salimi v. Farmers Ins. Group, 684 P.2d 264 (Colo.App. 1984); Corbin, supra, note 3. See also, Brooks v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 574 F.Supp. 805 (D.Colo. 1983). 14. See, e.g., Justice v. Stanley Aviation Corp., 35 Colo.App. 1, 530 P.2d 984 (1974); Bauer v. Goldman, 45 Colo. 163, 100......
-
Colorado Law of Retaliatory Discharge and Handicap Discrimination
...at Will' and the Discharged Employee in Colorado," 12 The Colorado Lawyer 733 (May 1983); Brooks v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 574 F.Supp. 805 (D.Colo. 1983). 2. See Wing v. JMB Property Management Corp., 714 P.2d 916, 918 (Colo.App. 1985), in which the court recognized that, although no t......