Flenker v. Willamette Industries, Inc., 80408
Citation | 967 P.2d 295,266 Kan. 198 |
Decision Date | 06 November 1998 |
Docket Number | No. 80408,80408 |
Parties | , 14 IER Cases 913 David FLENKER, Appellant, v. WILLAMETTE INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellee. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Kansas |
Syllabus by the Court
The remedy provided by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration § 11(c) (29 U.S.C. § 660[c] [1994] ) for employees who allege that they have been discharged in retaliation for filing complaints under that statute does not preclude the filing of a Kansas common-law wrongful discharge claim under Kansas's public policy exception to at-will employment. On a certification of a question of law from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, ROBERT H. HENRY, judge. Opinion filed November 6, 1998. The question certified is determined.
Stephen J. Dennis, of Overland Park, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellant.
Rody P. Biggert, of Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson, of Chicago, Illinois, argued the cause, and John L. Vratil, of Lathrop & Gage, L.L.C., of Overland Park, was with him on the brief for appellee.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has certified the following question to this court under K.S.A. 60-3201:
"Does the remedy provided by OSHA § 11(c) [29 U.S.C. § 660(c) (1994) ] for employees who allege that they have been discharged in retaliation for filing complaints under that statute preclude the filing of a Kansas common law wrongful discharge claim under Kansas's public policy exception to at-will employment?"
The answer is, "no."
This case arises out of the March 11, 1994, firing of David Flenker, a worker at Willamette Industries, Inc.'s (Willamette) corrugated paper manufacturing plant. Willamette's basis for firing Flenker was that he failed to comply with the terms of the rehabilitation agreement he had signed under Willamette's alcohol and drug use policy. Flenker contends that he was fired because he reported unsafe working conditions to Willamette and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).
Our analysis of the certified question is advanced by posing and answering two secondary questions.
1. Does the rule in Coleman v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 242 Kan. 804, 812-13, 752 P.2d 645 (1988), extend to situations other than the collective bargaining agreement context? The answer is "yes."
2. If Coleman extends beyond the collective bargaining context, is the remedy in OSHA § 11(c) "adequate"? The answer is "no."
The Tenth Circuit Certification Order informs us that:
Flenker chose to litigate his claims in state court; however, Willamette removed the lawsuit to federal court.
We restate the certified question:
Does the remedy provided by OSHA § 11(c) for employees who allege that they have been discharged in retaliation for filing complaints under that statute preclude the filing of a Kansas common law wrongful discharge claim under Kansas' public policy exception to at-will employment?
At-will employment is the general rule in Kansas. We said in Johnston v. Farmers Alliance Mutual Ins. Co., 218 Kan. 543, 546, 545 P.2d 312 (1976): "[I]n the absence of a contract, expressed or implied, between an employee and his employer covering the duration of employment, the employment is terminable at the will of either party."
We have recognized public policy exceptions to the at-will employment doctrine. For a review of the Kansas case law, see Worth and Landis, Fire at Will? The Status of Judicially Created Exceptions to Employment-at-Will in Kansas, 64 J.K.B.A. 22 (1995). The so-called whistle-blower's exception was first announced in Palmer v. Brown, 242 Kan. 893, 752 P.2d 685 (1988). Termination, in retaliation for the good faith reporting of a co-worker's or employer's serious infraction of rules, regulations, or law pertaining to public health, safety, and the general welfare, is an actionable tort. 242 Kan. at 900, 752 P.2d 685. Palmer involved an employee's reporting of allegedly improper medicaid billing practices to "unspecified authorities." 242 Kan. at 894, 752 P.2d 685.
Willamette argues that Flenker has no independent state law tort claim, relying on Polson v. Davis, 895 F.2d 705 (10th Cir.1990). Federal courts in Kansas have followed Polson 's interpretation of Kansas law (exceptions to the at-will employment doctrine should be limited to situations where there is no adequate alternative remedy), e.g., Conner v. Schnuck Markets, Inc., 906 F.Supp. 606, 614 (D.Kan.1995).
Polson observed that Kansas federal district courts were split on whether the public policy exception should be extended to cover conduct protected under a statutory scheme, specifically the Kansas Act Against Discrimination (KAAD), K.S.A. 44-1001 et seq. 895 F.2d at 709. Wynn v. Boeing Military Airplane Co., 595 F.Supp. 727 (D.Kan.1984) held that the public policy exception permitting an independent cause of action should apply in cases in which a worker's termination is alleged to stem from conduct proscribed by KAAD. Judge Theis in Wynn reasoned that the fact that the various remedies might differ is sufficient to require recognition of a state common law remedy. 895 F.2d at 709.
In contrast, Judge Rogers in Tarr v. Riberglass, Inc., No. 83-4234, 1984 WL 1481 (D.Kan. February 3, 1984), and Judge O'Connor in the lower Polson decision, 635 F.Supp. 1130 (D.Kan.1986), and Robinson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., No. 84-2471 (unpublished D. Kan. March 5, 1986), held that the availability of remedies under KAAD precludes expanding the remedies available at common law. 895 F.2d at 709.
Polson chose to follow the preclusive approach, discerning in Coleman v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 242 Kan. at 813-14, 752 P.2d 645, a reliance on "inadequacy of arbitration to compensate employees for torts committed by employers." 895 F.2d at 709. Polson concluded: "It appears that we must investigate the adequacy of the alternative remedy before classifying a situation as being under the public policy exception to the employment-at-will doctrine." 895 F.2d at 709. Polson reasoned that this court would adopt the view that KAAD provides an adequate and exclusive state remedy for violations of the public policy at issue. 895 F.2d at 709. We note, however, that Polson seems to employ a strict view of "adequate," finding there is no evidence that the remedies provided for in KAAD were "constitutionally inadequate to compensate plaintiff," or "so inadequate to enforce the stated public policy as to require bolstering by a common law cause of action." 895 F.2d at 709-10.
Our discussion of Polson necessarily leads to a review of Coleman. Coleman is important here because our answer to the certified question is based on our precedent, not on federal rulings interpreting Kansas law.
Coleman overruled Cox v. United Technologies, 240 Kan. 95, 727 P.2d 456 (1986), Smith v. United Technologies, 240 Kan. 562, 731 P.2d 871 (1987), and Armstrong v. Goldblatt Tool Co., 242 Kan. 164, 747 P.2d 119 (1987). The overruled cases involved the interrelationship of Kansas tort law and the law of labor union contracts. In each of the three overruled cases: (1) a discharged employee was covered by a collective bargaining agreement, (2) the agreement prohibited the employee's discharge except for just cause, and (3) the employee was held not to have a cause of action in tort for wrongful discharge. Coleman reasoned that a retaliatory discharge action for filing a workers compensation claim is based on a violation of state public policy independent of a collective bargaining agreement. 242 Kan. 804, Syl. p 1, 752 P.2d 645. Coleman also concluded that the arbitration procedures provided for in the collective bargaining agreement were a "limited remedy," and might not result in the employee's right being "adequately protected." 242 Kan. at 813-14, 752 P.2d 645.
Preemption is not an issue here. Willamette does not...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Connelly v. Kansas Highway Patrol
...However, we will quote the discussion in Prager of the ultimate question as raised by our decision in Flenker v. Willamette Industries, Inc., 266 Kan. 198, 202-03, 967 P.2d 295 (1998): "`The alternative remedies doctrine at issue here, referenced sometimes as preclusion, is a substitution o......
-
Lumry v. State
...alternative remedy." 292 Kan. at 236, 255 P.3d 1 ; Hysten , 277 Kan. at 561, 108 P.3d 437 ; see also Flenker v. Willamette Industries, Inc ., 266 Kan. 198, 202–03, 967 P.2d 295 (1998). In other words, if a substitute remedy is adequate, it precludes a common-law claim.And even though there ......
-
Burnett v. Southwestern Bell Telephone, 96,793.
...law." Hysten v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Ry. Co., 277 Kan. 551, 554, 85 P.3d 1183 (2004) (citing Flenker v. Willamette Industries, Inc., 266 Kan. 198, 201-02, 967 P.2d 295 [1998]). Federal Courts' Determinations of Claims Predicated Upon a Violation of Rights Under § 510 of ERISA (29 U.......
-
Rowland v. Franklin Career Services, LLC, CIV.A. 02-2324KHV.
...genuine issues of material fact remain on this claim. At-will employment is the general rule in Kansas. See Flenker v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 266 Kan. 198, 200, 967 P.2d 295 (1998). Kansas courts, however, have recognized public policy exceptions to the at-will employment doctrine. See id......
-
Twenty Years After Murphy v. City of Topeka: an Overview of Kansas Retaliatory and Public Policy Wrongful Discharge Law
...706 (10th Cir. 1990) (predicting how the Kansas Supreme Court would rule if faced with the issue); Flenker v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 266 Kan. 198, 967 P.2d 295, 302 (1998) (stating in dicta that "Polson was correct in surmising the Kansas rule to be that an adequate alternative remedy pre......
-
Closing the Door on the Public Policy Exception to At-will Employment: How the Washington State Supreme Court Erroneously Foreclosed Wrongful Discharge Claims for Whistleblowers in Cudney v. Alsco, Inc
.... . an intent on the part of the Legislature to preclude an employee from suing on his own behalf."); Flenker v. Willamette Indus., Inc., 967 P.2d 295 (Kan. 1998) (finding an "employee's remedy for wrongful discharge in retaliation for filing complaint under OSHA . . . is inadequate"); Cerr......