Christy v. Petrus

• Decision Date: 12 November 1956
• Docket Number: No. 44994,44994
• Citation: 295 S.W.2d 122,365 Mo. 1187
• Parties: , 31 Lab.Cas. P 70,311 Lee CHRISTY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Paul PETRUS, d/b/a South Side Auto Parts, Defendant-Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

Page 122

295 S.W.2d 122

365 Mo. 1187, 31 Lab.Cas. P 70,311

Lee CHRISTY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Paul PETRUS, d/b/a South Side Auto Parts, Defendant-Respondent.

No. 44994.

Supreme Court of Missouri, En Banc.

Nov. 12, 1956.

Albert J. Yonke, Kansas City, for appellant.

R. C. Tucker, C. Thomas Carr, Tucker, Murphy, Wilson & Siddens, Kansas City, for respondent.

HOLMAN, Commissioner.

Action for damages wherein plaintiff sought to recover $7,500 actual and $10,000 punitive damages for his alleged wrongful discharge by his employer, defendant herein. At the commencement of the trial defendant objected to the introduction of any evidence in support of the allegations in the petition for the reason that the petition failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. At that time he also called attention to his previously filed written motion to dismiss based upon the same ground. The court sustained both the objection and the motion and entered judgment for defendant upon both counts of said petition. Plaintiff has duly appealed.

Plaintiff alleged that he had been employed by defendant as a machinist; that on June 6, 1952, he sustained an injury in the course of his employment; that plaintiff filed a claim for compensation under the provisions of the Missouri Workmen's Compensation Law, Chapter 287 (all statutory references, unless otherwise indicated, are to RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S.); that as a direct result of plaintiff filing said claim and further exercising his rights under said law, defendant discharged plaintiff, and plaintiff has since been unable to obtain employment as a machinist and has been otherwise damaged.

It was alleged that the conduct of defendant in so discharging plaintiff was in violation of Section 287.780, which reads as follows: 'Every employer, his director, officer or agent, who discharges or in any way discriminates against an employee for exercising any of his rights under this chapter, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not less than fifty nor more than five hundred dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail for not less than one week nor more than one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment.'

The rule is well established in this state and elsewhere that in the absence of a contract for employment for a definite term or a contrary statutory provision, an employer may discharge an employee at any time, without cause or reason, or for any reason and, in such case, no action can be maintained for wrongful discharge. Culver v. Kurn, 354 Mo. 1158, 193 S.W.2d 602, 166 A.L.R. 644; Forsyth v. Board of Trustees of Park College, 240 Mo.App. 622, 212 S.W.2d 82; Bell v. Faulkner, Mo.App., 75 S.W.2d 612; Odell v. Humble Oil & Refining Co., 10 Cir., 201 F.2d 123. It therefore becomes apparent that plaintiff's petition does not state a claim for relief unless it may be said that the foregoing statute, in addition to providing that the employer violating same shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, also gives the employee a claim for the recovery of personal damages arising from the alleged wrongful discharge. That is the sole question for our determination.

At the outset it should be made clear that there is no analogy between the statute before us and the cases wherein it is held that violation of a duty prescribed by a statute is negligence per se. That rule is based on the underlying theory that in such cases a standard of care has been fixed by law and, therefore, failure to conform to such standard is negligence as a matter of law. Neither should we consider as applicable the many situations where an act is made criminal by statute and the injured party has an existing civil action independent of the state (assault, embezzlement, etc.). In those cases the statute does not create the civil right of action, nor does its enactment preclude the injured party from maintaining his private action. In the instant case we must determine whether the violation of a criminal statute providing a penalty for the discharge of an employee for the reason specified gives rise to a claim for damages by the employee, where no such claim existed independently of the statute.

Section 287.780 was enacted in 1925 as a part of the original Missouri Workmen's Compensation Law. Since that time the provisions of that section have never been interpreted by the appellate courts of this state. As far as we can determine it has never been cited or referred to. Counsel have apparently been unable to find any similar statute among the laws of other states. No case has been cited in which this precise question has been determined and we have been unable to find any.

In support of his contention that the instant section gave him a claim for damages for the alleged wrongful discharge, plaintiff relies mainly on the decisions construing the 'service letter' statute, Section 290.140, which he argues is analogous. That section is as follows: 'Whenever any employee of any corporation doing business in this state shall be discharged or voluntarily quit the service of such corporation, it shall be the duty of the superintendent or manager of said corporation, upon the written request of such employee to him * * * to issue to such employee a letter, duly signed by such superintendent or manager, setting forth the nature and character of service rendered by such employee to such corporation and the duration thereof, and truly stating for what cause, if any, such employee has quit such service; and if any such superintendent or manager shall fail or refuse to issue such letter to such employee when so requested by such employee, such superintendent or manager shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor * * *.' Since the decision in the case of Cheek v. Prudential Ins. Co., Mo.Sup., 192 S.W. 387, L.R.A.1918A 166, that section has been construed as giving the former employee a right of action for damages against the corporate employer whose officer refused to issue the requested letter.

Although the Cheek case contains some statements that tend to support plaintiff's position, it should be noted that the provisions of the 'service letter' statute are materially different from those contained in the section before us. For that and other reasons we have concluded that the 'service letter' statute and the cases construing it should not, by analogy, control our decision on the issue before us. In the Cheek case the court placed great emphasis on the fact that the statute there under consideration enjoined upon the corporate official a positive, affirmative duty to issue the letter and concluded that damages could be recovered for a breach of said duty. In a later case this court again considered that statute and indicated that the first part of the section, relating to the duty of issuing the letter, is remedial and is the basis for the damage action against the employer, and the latter portion is penal and may be enforced by the prosecution of the corporate superintendent or manager. State ex rel. Terminal R. R. Ass'n v. Hughes, 350 Mo. 869, 169 S.W.2d 328. It therefore becomes significant to note that the instant section has no provision relating to any positive duty, but merely provides a criminal penalty in the event the employer shall discharge an employee for the reason stated.

It may be of interest to note that the court, in the Cheek case, in considering the remedial nature of the 'service letter' statute, recognized the historical reasons for the enactment of that law. It was stated that a great public evil had arisen in relation to the method used by employers in obtaining information from previous employers of their applicants for employment, and that the statute was enacted to regulate this custom which had resulted in great injustice and oppression upon large numbers of laboring people. By way of contrast, it may be stated that there does not appear to have been any great remedial need for the instant section. The Workmen's Compensation Law was just being enacted and there could not have been any custom or practice in existence in this State, relating to the discharge of workmen's compensation employee--claimants, which needed to be regulated or corrected. The section was obviously of a preventive rather than remedial nature.

It is well settled that statutes in existence at the time and place of making a contract, and at place of performance, which effect the validity, construction and enforcement of said contract, enter into and form a part thereof as if expressly incorporated therein. Curators of Central College v. Rose, Mo.Sup., 182 S.W.2d 145. In construing the 'service letter' statute the courts have recognized and applied this rule. For example, see the case of Brink's, Inc., v. Hoyt, 8 Cir., 179 F.2d 355, 358, in which the rule was stated and applied as follows: 'The above quoted statute was on the statute books at and for a long time prior to the time plaintiff entered the employ of the defendant Brink's, Inc. It therefore became a part of the contract of employment so that the action of plaintiff was in the nature of an action for damages for the breach of his employment contract.'

The date of plaintiff's employment does not appear in the petition. We will assume that it was subsequent to the enactment of Section 287.780 and that said section, if applicable, became a part of the employment contract. As indicated, a reading of the instant section will reveal that it is quite different from...