D'Ulisse-Cupo v. Board of Directors of Notre Dame High School, ULISSE-CUPO

• Decision Date: 04 February 1986
• Docket Number: No. 3900,ULISSE-CUPO,3900
• Citation: 503 A.2d 1192,6 Conn.App. 153
• Court: Connecticut Court of Appeals
• Parties: , 30 Ed. Law Rep. 425 Maria D'v. BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF NOTRE DAME HIGH SCHOOL et al.

Page 1192

503 A.2d 1192

6 Conn.App. 153, 30 Ed. Law Rep. 425

Maria D'ULISSE-CUPO v. BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF NOTRE DAME HIGH SCHOOL et al.

No. 3900.

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued Dec. 10, 1985.

Decided Feb. 4, 1986.

Joseph D. Garrison, New Haven, for appellant (plaintiff).

Thomas E. Crosby, Bridgeport, for appellees (defendants).

Before HULL, BORDEN and DALY, JJ.

HULL, Judge.

The plaintiff appeals from the judgment for the defendants rendered by the trial court after it granted their motion to strike the plaintiff's complaint. We conclude that each of the three counts of the plaintiff's complaint stated a cause of action and, accordingly, we find that the trial court erred in striking the complaint.

The plaintiff brought suit against the named defendant and its principal, George Schmitz, for wrongfully discharging her as a teacher at Notre Dame High School. The plaintiff's complaint sounded in three counts. The facts as alleged by the plaintiff are as follows. ¹ The plaintiff was employed from September, 1981, until June, 1983, at Notre Dame High School as a teacher of Spanish and Italian under two successive one year contracts of employment. On or about March 21, 1983, Schmitz told the plaintiff that there would be no problem with her teaching certain courses and levels the following year, that everything looked fine for her rehiring for the next year, and that she should continue to organize an exchange program. Sometime between April 11 and 15, 1983, Schmitz or his authorized representative posted a written notice which stated: "All present faculty members will be offered contracts for next year." Immediately upon her return from an exchange trip to Italy which she had organized for the school, the plaintiff was again informed that she would have a contract for the next year. The plaintiff relied to her detriment upon these oral and written promises.

The plaintiff further alleged that on or about May 4, 1983, she was told that her contract would not be renewed due to staff cuts in the English, religion and language departments. The plaintiff asserted that she was fully qualified for employment with the defendants and had greater seniority than other teachers whose contracts were not terminated. The plaintiff claimed that as a result of her wrongful discharge, she suffered the stress of unemployment, loss of esteem, damage to her professional career and reputation, lost wages and fringe benefits, and mental and physical pain and suffering.

The plaintiff alleged the following additional facts in support of her third count. On or about May 27, 1983, Schmitz interviewed the plaintiff for a teaching position in the English department. The plaintiff was qualified to teach English. Prior to this interview, Schmitz had told the plaintiff and other teachers that the defendants would do everything possible to avoid discharging teachers. Despite these promises, the defendants hired an outside applicant as a one year replacement for the English position, rather than the plaintiff. The defendant did not offer the plaintiff substitute teaching positions, although she was both available and qualified for the positions. Nor did the defendant explore other alternatives to firing the plaintiff. The breach of these promises caused damage to the plaintiff.

The defendants moved to strike all counts of the plaintiff's complaint, asserting that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted because the plaintiff was an at-will employee and could, therefore, be terminated for any reason. The court granted the defendants' motion as to the first count, reasoning that while an employer can be responsible in damages under the wrongful discharge doctrine if the former employee can prove that the dismissal was made for reasons which violate an important public policy, the plaintiff, as an at-will employee, was not within the class of persons sought to be protected by the wrongful discharge exception. The court also noted that the plaintiff was not "discharged from employment," she merely was not rehired. In deciding the motion to strike the second count, the court, relying on 4 Restatement (Second), Torts § 552, ² ruled that the plaintiff could not prevail because she had not alleged that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care or competence in obtaining or communicating the information to the plaintiff, which is a necessary element of negligent misrepresentation as propounded in the Restatement. As to the third count, the court held that a valid cause of action existed only if the court found that the plaintiff had alleged a binding contract between the plaintiff and the defendants or if the plaintiff's claims came within the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The court, applying the contract test to the plaintiff's complaint, found that the third count did not state a cause of action since there was no allegation or inference that the plaintiff accepted the alleged offer. Concerning the claim of promissory estoppel the court relied on 1 Restatement (Second), Contracts § 90, ³ and concluded that while the plaintiff had alleged a promise by the defendants and her detrimental reliance, she had not, as required by the Restatement, alleged that the defendants "reasonably expected to induce action or forebearance" on her part.

"It is axiomatic that, in passing on a motion to strike based on a claim of failure to state a cause of action, we must take the facts alleged favorably to the pleader and view those facts in a broad fashion, not strictly limited to the allegations, but also including the facts necessarily implied by and fairly provable under them. Amodio v. Cunningham, 182 Conn. 80, 83, 438 A.2d 6 (1980); Alarm Applications Co. v. Simsbury Volunteer Fire Co., 179 Conn. 541, 545, 427 A.2d 822 (1980); Shelby Mutual Ins. Co. v. Della Ghelfa, 3 Conn.App. 432, 444-45, 489 A.2d 398 (1985); Greene v. Metals Selling Corporation, 3 Conn.App. 40, 41-42, 484 A.2d 478 (1984)." Schmidt v. Yardney Electric Corporation, 4 Conn.App. 69, 74, 492 A.2d 512 (1985).

Concerning all three counts, we note that the plaintiff claimed wrongful termination of her employment and wrongful discharge. ⁴ Despite the use of these terms, it was clear in the court below, and in this court, that the plaintiff was relying on the theory of implied contract arising out of the defendants' alleged promises to reemploy her and her alleged detrimental reliance thereon. We consider the same analysis relating to wrongful discharge of an employee to apply to a case, such as this, where the claim is a wrongful failure to rehire after a one year contract.

The plaintiff acknowledges that an employee in Connecticut generally is subject to termination at the will of the employer or, by implication, termination by failure to rehire. The plaintiff claims, however, that her case falls within an exception to this general rule. In support of this claim, she relies on dictum in Magnan v. Anaconda Industries, Inc., 193 Conn. 558, 479 A.2d 781 (1984). In that case, the court, in considering the claim of an employee that he relied upon an implied promise to discharge only for cause, stated: "[s]ometimes the promise [to discharge only for cause] has been found in the representations contained in an employee relations manual or handbook. In appropriate circumstances, such an agreement may arise when an employee, in reliance on an implied representation that the position will not arbitrarily be terminated, leaves his current employment, or otherwise acts in reasonable and significant reliance on the representation." (Footnote omitted.) Magnan v. Anaconda Industries, Inc., supra, 564-65, 479 A.2d 781.

The defendant relies on the general rule that either party may terminate, at any time, employment which is indefinite as to duration and such termination is permissible with or without cause. Somers v. Cooley Chevrolet Co., 146 Conn. 627, 153 A.2d 426 (1959); Boucher v. Godfrey, 119 Conn. 622, 178 A. 655 (1935). The defendant also argues that the case of Fisher v. Jackson, 142 Conn. 734, 118 A.2d 316 (1955), is dispositive of the plaintiff's contract claim. ⁵ In that case, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant breached an oral agreement to employ him permanently. He sought damages from the defendant on the basis of his assertion that the defendant induced him to forego another job with another employer in exchange for the offer of permanent employment. The Supreme Court rejected the plaintiff's claim, stating that "[i]n the absence of a consideration in addition to the rendering...