Howard v. Dorr Woolen Co.
| Decision Date | 05 May 1980 |
| Docket Number | 79-293 and 79-296,Nos. 79-217,s. 79-217 |
| Parties | , 115 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 4578, 29 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1397 Robert R. HOWARD, III, Administrator of the Estate of Franklin C. Baldwin, et al. v. DORR WOOLEN COMPANY. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Craig, Wenners, Craig & McDowell, Manchester (Thomas E. Craig, Manchester, orally), for plaintiffs.
Elliott & Jasper, Newport (Louie C. Elliott, Jr., Newport, orally), for defendant.
This appeal is a consolidation of three separate cases consisting of two interlocutory appeals and an appeal from the granting of a motion to dismiss by DiClerico, J. The principal issue is whether either the widow or estate of the decedent is entitled to damages, including the value of a group term life insurance policy, for an alleged wrongful discharge by the defendant. We hold that neither are entitled to such damages, and dismiss the appeal.
According to the agreed statement of facts, Franklin C. Baldwin was employed by the defendant Dorr Woolen Company almost continuously from November 1952 to March 1975, at which time he was discharged for reasons of "economic necessity." At the time of his discharge, Mr. Baldwin had vested retirement benefits under a company plan that he was not entitled to receive unless and until he reached the age of fifty-five. The defendant had also provided Mr. Baldwin with group term life insurance in the amount of $36,000, which he was entitled to continue upon his discharge provided that he assume the premium payments. Mr. Baldwin was discharged at the age of fifty. He did not choose to keep the life insurance policy in effect because he allegedly could not afford to pay the premiums. Mr. Baldwin died one year after his discharge.
Laura M. Baldwin, the widow of Franklin C. Baldwin, was the named beneficiary in the insurance policy at issue. She and Robert R. Howard, III, administrator of the estate of Mr. Baldwin, brought these actions for wrongful discharge by the defendant, principally claiming damages in the amount of the life insurance policy.
The first issue is whether the estate of Mr. Baldwin has pleaded sufficient facts to maintain an action against the defendant. The administrator alleges that the defendant discharged Mr. Baldwin because of his age, his suffering from a debilitating condition of angina, and for the purpose of denying him his accrued retirement benefits. He argues that such allegations constitute a discharge motivated by bad faith, malice, or retaliation, and warrants recovery for breach of contract under Monge v. Beebe Rubber Co., 114 N.H. 130, 316 A.2d 549 (1974).
It is evident that the defendant did not discharge Mr. Baldwin for the purpose of denying him his accrued retirement benefits, as it is admitted by both parties that such benefits vested at the time of his discharge, but that he was not entitled to receive them unless and until he reached the age of fifty-five. We therefore disregard this allegation.
We also find the administrator's reliance upon Monge v. Beebe Rubber Co., supra, for the proposition that a discharge due to age or sickness warrants recovery is misplaced. We construe Monge to apply only to a situation where an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Foley v. Interactive Data Corp.
...Supreme Court thereafter confined Monge to cases in which the employer's actions contravene public policy. (Howard v. Dorr Woolen Co. (1980) 120 N.H. 295, 414 A.2d 1273, 1274.) In the second case, Fortune v. National Cash Register Co. (1977) 373 Mass. 96, 364 N.E.2d 1251, 1256, the court cr......
-
Porter v. City of Manchester
...a wrongful termination cause of action sounds in contract. See Monge, 114 N.H. at 133–34, 316 A.2d 549.In Howard v. Dorr Woolen Company, 120 N.H. 295, 297, 414 A.2d 1273 (1980), we narrowly construed Monge "to apply only to a situation where an employee is discharged because he performed an......
-
Thompson v. St. Regis Paper Co.
...of a "bad faith" exception. See Monge v. Beebe Rubber Co., 114 N.H. 130, 316 A.2d 549 (1974), modified in, Howard v. Dorr Woolen Co., 120 N.H. 295, 414 A.2d 1273 (1980). Cleary v. American Airlines, Inc., 111 Cal.App.3d 443, 168 Cal.Rptr. 722 (1980); Fortune v. National Cash Register Co., 3......
-
Magnan v. Anaconda Industries, Inc.
...was first announced, has since retreated and presently requires that the discharge violate public policy. See Howard v. Door Woolen Co., 120 N.H. 295, 414 A.2d 1273 (1980). Wisconsin and Hawaii have both expressly refused to follow the rule. See Parnar v. Americana Hotels, Inc., 65 Hawaii 3......
-
Enhanced Monitoring of White Collar Employees: Should Employers Be Required to Disclose?
...cause. Id. See also Monge v. Beebe Rubber Co., 114 N.H. 130, 316 A.2d 549 (1974), modified in Howard v. Dorr Woolen Co., 120 N.H. 295, 414 A.2d 1273 (1980) (stating that every employment contract has an implied-in-law covenant of good faith and fair dealing that limits the employer's discre......