Conner v. City of Forest Acres

• Decision Date: 04 May 2005
• Docket Number: No. 25961.,25961.
• Citation: 363 S.C. 460,611 S.E.2d 905
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: Evelyn H. CONNER, Appellant, v. CITY OF FOREST ACRES, Respondent.

Page 905

611 S.E.2d 905

363 S.C. 460

Evelyn H. CONNER, Appellant, v. CITY OF FOREST ACRES, Respondent.

No. 25961.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Heard February 1, 2005.

Decided April 4, 2005.

Rehearing Denied May 4, 2005.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Howard A. Hammer, of Hammer, Hammer & Potterfield, of Columbia; and Scott Elliott, of Elliott & Elliott, PA, of Columbia, for Appellant.

Kathryn Thomas and Derwood L. Aydlette, III, both of Gignilliat, Savitz & Bettis, L.L.P., of Columbia, for Respondent.

Justice BURNETT.

Evelyn H. Conner (Employee) appeals a jury verdict in favor of the City of Forest Acres (City) in this wrongful discharge action. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Employee brought this wrongful discharge action, grounded in breach of contract, in what is commonly known as a "employee handbook claim," against City in 1994. We reversed a grant of summary judgment to City and remanded the case for trial. Conner v. City of Forest Acres, 348 S.C. 454, 560 S.E.2d 606 (2002) (affirming in part and reversing in part the unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals).

Employee was a police dispatcher and office worker in City's police department for nine years. From November 1992 to June 1993, six written reprimands were issued to Employee for violating the dress code, tardiness, performing poor work, leaving work without permission, and using abusive language.

In July 1993, Employee was evaluated as unsatisfactory and placed on a ninety-day probation. She received written reprimands twice in August 1993 and her October 1993 evaluation reflected only slight improvement. Police Chief J.C. Rowe notified Employee by letter dated October 7, 1993, that she was terminated from her job.

Various witnesses for both parties, including Chief Rowe, testified that until her last year or so in the job, Employee was a competent, motivated employee who excelled as a dispatcher—"among the best," "fantastic," "consistent and effective," and "top of the line." Witnesses presented by Employee testified they had a good working relationship with her in 1992-93, although some were patrol officers who had limited contact with office staff. Employee, then age 50, admitted she made some mistakes and sometimes even described herself to other staff members as a "b____." But she denied most of the allegations of wrongdoing as well as City's effort to portray her as a troublemaker who enjoyed disrupting the office staff.

In contrast, witnesses presented by City, most of whom worked in police and municipal court offices, testified Employee's attitude, behavior, and work habits deteriorated severely in 1992-93. Employee belittled or berated co-workers for no reason, took excessive smoking and bathroom breaks, purposely misplaced or disorganized facsimile messages and arrest paperwork, showed disrespect toward police supervisors in the presence of private citizens, ignored the requests of disliked co-workers, used excessive profanity, and generally refused to work cooperatively with other office staff.

The jury rendered a verdict for City at the conclusion of a four-day trial. This appeal was certified for review from the Court of Appeals pursuant to Rule 204(b), SCACR.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The admission or exclusion of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court and the trial court's decision will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. Pike v. S.C. Dept. of Transp., 343 S.C. 224, 234, 540 S.E.2d 87, 92 (2000); Gooding v. St. Francis Xavier Hosp., 326 S.C. 248, 252, 487 S.E.2d 596, 598 (1997). An abuse of discretion occurs when the ruling is based on an error of law or a factual conclusion without evidentiary support. Carlyle v. Tuomey Hosp., 305 S.C. 187, 193, 407 S.E.2d 630, 633 (1991); Fontaine v. Peitz, 291 S.C. 536, 538, 354 S.E.2d 565, 566 (1987). To warrant reversal based on the admission or exclusion of evidence, the appellant must prove both the error of the ruling and the resulting prejudice, i.e., there is a reasonable probability the jury's verdict was influenced by the wrongly admitted or excluded evidence. Hanahan v. Simpson, 326 S.C. 140, 156, 485 S.E.2d 903, 911 (1997); Timmons v. S.C. Tricentennial Commn., 254 S.C. 378, 405, 175 S.E.2d 805, 819 (1970); Powers v. Temple, 250 S.C. 149, 160, 156 S.E.2d 759, 764 (1967).

ISSUE

Did the trial court err by prohibiting Employee from introducing evidence about the grievance process, which occurred after Employee's initial termination date, and in instructing the jury to disregard all such evidence?

DISCUSSION

Employee contends the trial court committed reversible error by refusing to allow Employee to introduce evidence about events which occurred after Employee's initial termination on October 7, 1993, and in instructing the jury to disregard subsequent events. Employee argues that evidence of the disciplinary process followed in Employee's case, the vote and recommendation of the grievance committee which heard her case, and the actions of city council which reviewed her case were admissible. Such evidence was necessary to establish the existence of a contract and lack of the evidence allowed the jury to draw an inference that the procedure was not binding and thus no contract existed. Employee asserts the evidence also was admissible on the issue of whether City acted in good faith and had a sufficient and reasonable basis to terminate Employee. We agree in part.

City moved in limine to prohibit admission of any evidence of events occurring after October 7, including the actions of the grievance committee and city council. City argued that Employee in her complaint had not alleged City had failed to follow the grievance procedure. City asserted it had fully complied with the County and Municipal Employees Grievance Procedure Act,¹ which City contended provides for nothing more than a review of a decision already made and does not limit City's power to terminate at-will employees.

The trial court ruled this Court in Conner, 348 S.C. 454, 560 S.E.2d 606, had conclusively established October 7 as Employee's effective, final termination date. Therefore, Employee would not be allowed to introduce evidence of grievance proceedings occurring after that date because such events were irrelevant and likely to cause unfair prejudice to City or confuse the jury. See Rules 401-403, SCRE. The trial court ruled Employee would be required to prove her case—i.e., the existence of a contract which modified her at-will employment status by virtue of mandatory language in the handbook and, if a contract existed, the lack of a reasonable, good-faith belief that City had sufficient cause to terminate her—based solely on evidence of events occurring on or before October 7.

The trial court erred in interpreting Conner to effectively establish October 7, which was mentioned in the recitation of the facts, as the final termination date. We further conclude the trial court erred in relying in its ruling on section 15-2 of City's municipal code, which states the police chief "shall have complete authority to appoint, suspend and remove all police personnel and employees of the police department." The disciplinary and grievance policies contained within the various handbooks, combined with the particular facts of this case revealing City followed those policies, demonstrate city council made the final decision to terminate Employee when it voted to reject the committee's recommendation and uphold the police chief's decision.

We disagree with City that the ordinance somehow supercedes established City policies and practices by vesting sole and final termination authority in the police chief. "However plain the ordinary meaning of the words used in a statute may be, the courts will reject that meaning when to accept it would lead to a result so plainly absurd that it could not possibly have been intended by the Legislature or would defeat the plain legislative intention." Kiriakides v. United Artist Commun., Inc., 312 S.C. 271, 275, 440 S.E.2d 364, 366 (1994).

The entire grievance process would be a meaningless exercise in futility if we were to adopt City's interpretation of the ordinance. Instead, we interpret the ordinance to mean simply the police chief has the final termination authority within the department, subject to established grievance policies and review as set forth in City's personnel manuals and the Grievance Procedure Act.²

City presented as evidence the written disciplinary and grievance procedures contained in City's personnel manuals issued in 1987 and 1993 and in the police department's personnel manual. The manuals were discussed at length in general terms by City's witnesses, who also emphasized language in the manuals which disclaimed any contract of employment, as well as statements signed by Employee acknowledging the manuals were not contracts of employment. Thus, City repeatedly presented evidence the handbook did not modify Employee's at-will status.

The trial court barred evidence City actually followed its handbook policies in Employee's case, i.e., that a grievance committee heard the matter, the committee voted 2-1 to reinstate Employee, and city council voted to reject the grievance committee's recommendation and uphold the termination. Specifically, the trial court excluded testimony from W.D. Morris, chairman of the grievance committee appointed to hear Employee's case, about the hearing. The trial court also excluded testimony from Ron Garbinsky, city administrator, about the grievance hearing or city council's actions. Employee testified she filed a grievance and a hearing was held, but the trial court excluded further testimony about the hearing.

Despite the trial court's rulings, the jury heard Employee testify she filed a grievance and a grievance hearing was held. Employee's vocational rehabilitation expert mentioned Employee's grievance proceeding. The city administrator testified the grievance...