Gilmore v. Salt Lake Area Community Action Program, 870395-CA
| Decision Date | 08 June 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 870395-CA,870395-CA |
| Citation | 775 P.2d 940 |
| Parties | 113 Lab.Cas. P 56,139 Walter K. GILMORE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SALT LAKE AREA COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM, Hal J. Shultz, Robert E. Philbrick, Fred Geter, Richard Fields, Ann O'Connell, John Does 1-30, Defendants and Respondents. |
| Court | Utah Court of Appeals |
Nann Novinski-Durando and Mark S. Miner, Salt Lake City, for appellant.
John K. Rice and Stephen W. Cook, Midvale, for respondents.
Before BENCH, BILLINGS and GREENWOOD, JJ.
Plaintiff Walter K. Gilmore appeals from entry of summary judgment for defendants in an action for wrongful termination of employment. Gilmore contends that his former employer's written policy manual constitutes an implied-in-fact contract that altered his status as an employee-at-will. Since the existence of an implied-in-fact contract is a question of fact, we conclude that summary judgment was inappropriately entered. We, therefore, reverse and remand.
Defendant Salt Lake Area Community Action Program (Program) is a private, nonprofit Utah corporation. Through federal funding, it administers various neighborhood programs such as "Head Start." Authority is delegated to the executive director, defendant Hal J. Shultz, through its controlling board of trustees (Board). This authority includes the power to hire and fire employees, subject to review by the Board's personnel committee.
In September 1974, the Program hired Gilmore as fiscal director. Gilmore does not recall any terms or conditions of employment, other than a six-month probationary period. Gilmore received a copy of the Program's "Personnel Policies Manual" (Manual) sometime after his probationary period had ended.
As the result of an audit for the fiscal year ending March 1976, a deficit of $9,800 was discovered, and a decision was made to computerize Gilmore's department. Shultz later discovered additional accounting discrepancies that indicated the total deficit to be over $46,000. Shultz then met with Gilmore and informed him that Gilmore's job could be in jeopardy unless the deficiencies in his accounting were corrected. At the end of the year, Shultz proposed to the Board that the fiscal staff be reduced, but that Gilmore remain as office manager. The Board rejected this proposal. An alternative proposal to reorganize Gilmore's department was implemented in March 1977, and an accounting supervisor was hired. Shultz assumed Gilmore's policy-making duties; the new accounting supervisor assumed Gilmore's remaining duties and received similar compensation.
On March 14, 1977, Shultz notified Gilmore in writing that his employment was being eliminated due to a "reduction in force." Gilmore appealed the decision in a letter to Shultz, who denied the appeal and referred Gilmore to the personnel committee. An immediate hearing was scheduled, and the committee took statements from Shultz and Gilmore. Neither Shultz nor Gilmore was present while the other gave his statement. Shultz also gave the committee an outline of his reasons for dismissing Gilmore. On April 14, defendant Fred Geter, chairman of the personnel committee, informed Gilmore by letter that the termination had been upheld. Further rehearings were denied.
Gilmore subsequently wrote to the Community Services Administration (CSA), the major federal grantor to the Program, alleging that personnel policies and procedures contained in the Manual were not followed. Gilmore requested an investigation. CSA ultimately determined that the Program had violated its own procedures and CSA regulations as outlined in the Manual. The Program's funding was reduced by 10% for two years, but CSA apparently never enforced this sanction.
Gilmore filed a federal civil rights suit against the Program, its Board, and its employees in early 1979. The U.S. District Court for Utah granted summary judgment for defendants and dismissed the action for lack of federal jurisdiction. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently affirmed the judgment. See Gilmore v. Salt Lake Area Community Action Program, 710 F.2d 632 (10th Cir.1983). Gilmore's petition for rehearing was denied.
Gilmore filed this action in 1984. The parties stipulated that depositions taken in the federal action be filed and published in the instant case. After cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court granted defendants' motion. On appeal, the parties do not contest that Gilmore was hired as an employee-at-will. Gilmore argues, however, that the Manual constituted an implied-in-fact promise that altered his status as an at-will employee.
Summary judgment must be supported by evidence, admissions, and inferences establishing "that there is no issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Utah R.Civ.P. 56(c). After reviewing the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Retherford v. AT & T Communications of Mountain States, Inc.
...v. Ford, Bacon & Davis Utah, Inc., 777 P.2d 483, 485-86 (Utah 1989); Berube, 771 P.2d at 1044-45; Gilmore v. Salt Lake Area Community Action Program, 775 P.2d 940, 942-43 (Utah Ct.App.1989), cert. denied, 789 P.2d 33 (Utah 1990). To prevail on her claim of intentional infliction of emotiona......
-
Helf v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc.
... ... Edward P. Moriarity, Salt Lake City, Shandar S. Badaruddin, Jacque M ... out of the employee's employment, and no action at law may be maintained against an employer ... a chemical spill that occurred in his work area were allegedly exacerbated by delayed evacuation ... ...
-
Sorenson v. Kennecott-Utah Copper Corp.
...contract as a question of fact. Johnson v. Morton Thiokol, Inc., 818 P.2d 997, 1001 (Utah 1991); accord Gilmore v. Community Action Program, 775 P.2d 940, 942 (Utah App.1989), cert. denied, 789 P.2d 33 (Utah 1990). 3 ANALYSIS In Rose v. Allied Development Co., 719 P.2d 83 (Utah 1986), the U......
-
Hirase-Doi v. U.S. West Communications, Inc., HIRASE-DO
... ... Karrenberg of Anderson & Karrenberg, Salt Lake City, UT (Linda M. Jones, with him on the ... Page 781 ... operator in an unsupervised area and engaged in sexually offensive behavior ... Doi brought this action against US West for hostile work environment ... and utterly intolerable in a civilized community and so extreme as to be beyond all bounds of ... ...
-
Cases in Controversy
...n ow can only maintain suit against his employer if the employee can show "an actual deliberate intent to injure him . . . ." Lantz, 775 P.2d at 940. In return for foregoing the right to sue an employer, an employee receives workers' compensation benefits, which are paltry in comparison to ......
-
Utah Employment Law Since Berube
...contract barring an employee's termination without cause. The Utah Court of Appeals did so in Gilmore v. Community Action Program, 775 P.2d 940 (Utah Ct. App. 1989), when it ruled that summary judgment was inappropriate where the employee could show that the employer's policy manual altered......