Dahl v. Combined Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 17 January 2001 |
Docket Number | No. 21291.,21291. |
Citation | 2001 SD 12,621 N.W.2d 163 |
Parties | Ron DAHL, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COMBINED INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Appellee. |
Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
Michael A. Hauck, Patrick J. Knecht (on the brief) Sioux Falls, SD, Attorneys for plaintiff and appellant.
Thomas J. Welk and Tamara A. Wilka of Boyce, Murphy, McDowell & Greenfield, Sioux Falls, SD, Attorneys for defendant and appellee.
[¶ 1.] Ron Dahl was employed by Combined Insurance Company of America (Combined) as a District Manager. Dahl discovered that certain premiums collected by Combined's agents were not being submitted to Combined. Dahl reported the missing premiums to the South Dakota Division of Insurance (Division) and he was later terminated. Dahl brought suit for 1.) wrongful discharge invoking the public policy exception to the employment at-will doctrine; and, 2.) misprison of a felony. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Combined. Dahl appeals. We reverse and remand issue 1 for trial.
[¶ 2.] In his statement of material facts to the trial court, Dahl stated: Dahl was employed by Combined from 1975 until 1995 as an at-will employee. Dahl began his employment as an insurance agent and eventually achieved the position of District Manager for Combined's District 10-4.1 During the end of 1993 Dahl learned that one or more of the agents or managers working under him had collected nearly $6,000 in premiums and had not remitted these premiums to Combined. Combined conducted an internal investigation but was unable to ascertain what person or persons had misappropriated the money. Based on the inability to identify the person or persons responsible, Combined charged Dahl one-third of the missing premiums, withholding $1,799.33 from his compensation.
[¶ 3.] Dahl informed Combined that he planned to report the missing premiums to the Division for additional investigation. On more than one occasion Dahl was told that if he reported the loss to the Division he would be terminated. In spite of these warnings, Dahl reported the missing premiums to the Division in May of 1994. The Division investigated the loss but was unable to identify the source or sources of the missing premiums. On June 17, 1995, Dahl was terminated.
[¶ 4.] Combined moved for summary judgment. Combined asserted that no cause of action existed on the facts alleged by Dahl, and that it was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Dahl responded with a motion for partial summary judgment seeking a declaration that the causes of actions asserted in his complaint were valid. The circuit court granted Combined's motion for summary judgment. Dahl appeals.
[¶ 5.] Our standard of review for summary judgment is well-established:
[¶ 6.] WHETHER THE PUBLIC POLICY EXCEPTION TO THE EMPLOYMENT AT WILL DOCTRINE PROTECTS FROM RETALIATORY DISCHARGE THOSE WHO REPORT CRIMINAL OR UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY TO A SUPERVISOR OR OUTSIDE AGENCY.
[¶ 7.] The South Dakota legislature has clearly defined the employment at will doctrine. "An employment having no specified term may be terminated at the will of either party...." SDCL 60-4-4. The potentially harsh effects of the at-will doctrine have been tempered in South Dakota by the adoption of the public policy exception. See Johnson v. Kreiser's Inc., 433 N.W.2d 225 (S.D.1988); Niesent v. Homestake Min. Co., 505 N.W.2d 781 (S.D.1993).
[¶ 8.] Public policy is primarily determined by the constitution, statutes and judicial decisions. Johnson, 433 N.W.2d at 227 (citing State ex rel. Meierhenry v. Spiegel Inc., 277 N.W.2d 298 (S.D.1979); Bartron v. Codington County, 68 S.D. 309, 2 N.W.2d 337 (1942)). "This Court [has] held that a cause of action for wrongful discharge arises on behalf of an employee where an employer's motivation for termination contravenes a clear mandate of public policy." Niesent, 505 N.W.2d at 783. In Johnson, we stated that Johnson, 433 N.W.2d at 227.2 Additionally, this court has held that an employee discharged for filing a worker's compensation claim has a cause of action under the public policy exception. Niesent, 505 N.W.2d at 783. A discharge in either of these situations "contravenes a clear mandate of public policy." Niesent, 505 N.W.2d at 783.
[¶ 9.] Dahl had knowledge that approximately $6,000 collected in premiums had not been remitted to Combined. Dahl believed employees working under his control had taken the money. Combined investigated but was unable to identify the person or persons responsible. Combined reduced Dahl's compensation by $1,799.33 as a result of this loss. Dahl reported the loss to the Division for further investigation. He was terminated and he claims that his termination was a result of this disclosure. This disputed claim creates a genuine issue of material fact.
[¶ 10.] Dahl states a cause of action for wrongful discharge under the public policy exception. Dahl claims Combined impermissibly forced Dahl to choose between reporting the loss or losing his job. Whether Dahl was demoted and quit, as claimed by Combined, or whether said demotion constituted a termination, as claimed by Dahl are genuine issues of material fact for determination by a jury. State v. Thiewes, 448 N.W.2d 1, 3 (S.D. 1989).
[¶ 11.] In Johnson and Niesent this court held that "a cause of action for wrongful discharge arises on behalf of an employee where an employer's motivation for termination contravenes a clear mandate of public policy." Johnson, 433 N.W.2d at 227; Niesent, 505 N.W.2d at 783. "To state a cause of action under this exception, the employee must plead and prove that a substantial public policy may have been violated." Niesent, 505 N.W.2d at 783 (quoting Johnson, 433 N.W.2d at 227; Thompson v. St. Regis Paper Co., 685 P.2d 1081, 1089 (1984)).3
[¶ 12.] Whistleblowing,4 or the reporting of unlawful or criminal conduct to a supervisor or outside agency, plays an invaluable role in society. As recognized by courts considering this issue, Palmateer v. International Harvester Co., 85 Ill.2d 124, 52 Ill. Dec. 13, 421 N.E.2d 876, 880 (1981). As stated by the Arizona Supreme Court:
We believe that whistleblowing activity which serves a public purpose should be protected. So long as employees' actions are not merely private or proprietary, but instead seek to further the public good, the decision to expose illegal or unsafe practices should be encouraged. We recognize that there is a tension between the obvious societal benefits in having employees with access to information expose activities which may be illegal or which may jeopardize health and safety, and accepted concepts of employee loyalty, nevertheless we conclude that on balance actions which enhance the enforcement of our laws or expose unsafe conditions, or otherwise serve some singularly public purpose, will inure to the benefit of the public.
Wagner v. City of Globe, 150 Ariz. 82, 722 P.2d 250, 257 (1986) (emphasis added). We recognize, as the Arizona Supreme Court did in Wagner, that only whistleblowing which promotes the public good is protected by the public policy exception. This exception cannot be invoked by employees to primarily protect their proprietary interests, exact revenge on an employer, or for personal gain. If on remand, Combined proves that the reporting was solely for proprietary gain or retaliation against the company, then Dahl would not be entitled to the protection of this exception.
[¶ 13.] Indeed, there is no public policy that can be said to be more basic or necessary than the enforcement of the state's criminal code or the protection of the life and property of its citizens. See Palmateer, 52 Ill.Dec. 13,421 N.E.2d at 879. The laws of the State of South Dakota evidence this basic understanding. See e.g., SDCL 22-11-12 ( ); SDCL 23-13-10 through 23-13-12 ( ); SDCL 22-11-6 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Stathis v. Marty Indian Sch. Bd. Inc.
...or unlawful act; (2) filing a worker's compensation claim; and (3) whistleblowing that promotes the public good. Dahl v. Combined Ins. Co., 621 N.W.2d 163, 166–67 (S.D. 2001). Here, Stathis alleges that the "specific intent that the Bureau of Indian Affairs grant funds be utilized to provid......
-
Hagen v. Siouxland Obstetrics & Gynecology, P.C.
...789, 793–94 (2012); Loggins v. Kaiser Permanente Int'l, 151 Cal.App.4th 1102, 60 Cal.Rptr.3d 45, 50–51 (2007); Dahl v. Combined Ins. Co., 621 N.W.2d 163, 168 (S.D.2001); Phipps v. Clark Oil & Ref. Corp., 396 N.W.2d 588, 592 (Minn.Ct.App.1986), aff'd,408 N.W.2d 569 (Minn.1987). Because Quest......
-
Richardson v. Richardson
...it did in Pickering , it shares that power with the Legislature, and such power is subject to the South Dakota Constitution. Dahl v. Combined Ins. Co. , 2001 S.D. 12, ¶ 8, 621 N.W.2d 163, 166. Further, the Legislature "is closest to and best represents the people." Indep. Cmty. Bankers Ass'......
-
Anderson v. First Century Credit Union, 24164.
...for wrongful termination where the discharge is in retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim). [¶ 19.] In Dahl v. Combined Ins. Co., 2001 SD 12, 621 N.W.2d 163, we acknowledged that "whistleblowing," or the reporting of criminal or unlawful activity to superiors or outside agenci......
-
Employment-related crimes.
...court must find employee would not have been discharged "but for" employee's filing of complaint under FLSA); Dahl v. Combined Ins. Co., 621 N.W.2d 163, 166 (S.D. 2001) (holding employees who are terminated in retaliation for reporting illegal activity to an outside agency now have a claim ......
-
Employment-related crimes.
...court must find employee would not have been discharged "but for" employee's filing of complaint under FLSA); Dahl v. Combined Ins. Co., 621 N.W.2d 163, 166 (S.D. 2001) (holding employees who are terminated in retaliation for reporting illegal activity to an outside agency now have a claim ......
-
Employment-related crimes.
...court must find employee would not have been discharged "but for" employee's filing of complaint under FLSA); Dahl v. Combined Ins. Co., 621 N.W.2d 163, 166 (S.D. 2001) (holding employees who are terminated in retaliation for reporting illegal activity to an outside agency now have a claim ......
-
Whistleblowing in the Compliance Era
...to decline to perform acts required by their employers."). 304. Id. at 592 (alteration in original) (quoting Dahl v. Combined Ins. Co., 621 N.W.2d 163, 167 (S.D. 2001)).305. Id. at 593. Cavico notes that not all states have adopted a public policy exception for whistleblowers, and some have......