Huber v. Lightforce United States, Inc.

• Decision Date: 02 March 2016
• Docket Number: No. 41887.,41887.
• Citation: 159 Idaho 833,367 P.3d 228
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court
• Parties: Jeffrey Edward HUBER, an individual Plaintiff–Appellant, v. LIGHTFORCE USA, INCORPORATED, a Washington corporation, doing business as Nightforce Optics, Defendant–Respondent.

159 Idaho 833

367 P.3d 228

Jeffrey Edward HUBER, an individual Plaintiff–Appellant,

v.LIGHTFORCE USA, INCORPORATED, a Washington corporation, doing business as Nightforce Optics, Defendant–Respondent.

No. 41887.

Supreme Court of Idaho, Boise, November 2015 Term.

March 2, 2016.

McConnell Wagner Sykes & Stacey PLLC, Boise, for appellant. Jeffrey R. Sykes argued.

Moffatt, Thomas, Barrett, Rock & Fields, Chtd., Boise, for respondent. Andrea J. Rosholt argued.

SUBSTITUTE OPINION.

THE COURT'S PRIOR OPINION DATED DECEMBER 15, 2015, IS HEREBY WITHDRAWN.

J. JONES, Chief Justice.

Jeff Huber brought this action against his former employer, Lightforce USA, Inc. ("LFUSA"), for breach of contract and failure to pay wages. Huber's claims center on two agreements entered into during his employment with LFUSA: a Company Share Offer ("CSO"), and a Deed of Non–Disclosure, Non–Competition and Assignment ("NDA"). Huber claimed that upon his termination LFUSA was obligated to pay him the value of 30% of the goodwill of LFUSA under the CSO and twelve months' pay under the NDA. The parties agreed that the CSO was a deferred compensation plan and was, therefore, governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). At a bench trial, Huber succeeded only on his breach of contract claim under the NDA. Huber timely appealed the district court's rulings on summary judgment: (1) holding that the amount owed under the NDA was not wages under the Idaho Wage Claims Act, (2) dismissing his wrongful termination claim, and (3) holding that the CSO was a "top hat" plan under ERISA and, therefore, exempt from ERISA's vesting and anti-forfeiture provisions. Huber also appealed the district court's ruling at trial that Huber forfeited the benefit under the CSO, and the district court's rulings on post-trial motions: (1) denying his claim for equitable relief, (2) calculating Huber's award of prejudgment interest, and (3) awarding attorney fees and costs to LFUSA. Both Huber and LFUSA request attorney fees on appeal.

I.FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Lightforce Australia ("LFA") is an Australian company owned by Ray Dennis which manufactures spotlights for night hunting. In the early 1990s, Dennis expanded LFA into the United States and formed LFUSA, a Washington corporation. Jeff Huber began working for LFUSA in 1991 and was promoted to vice president in 1997. Huber was the person primarily responsible for LFUSA's daily operations and management as Dennis and the LFA Board of Advisors were located in Australia.¹

In 2000, LFUSA relocated from Washington to Orofino, Idaho. At that time, Huber and LFUSA entered into the CSO. The CSO provided that, beginning in 2000, Huber would receive 30% of the goodwill of LFUSA at a rate of 5% per year in exchange for his long-term employment and loyalty. As part of the CSO, LFUSA agreed to take out a $1,000,000 insurance policy on Huber to pay the value of the goodwill upon his illness, incapacitation, or death. Additionally, the CSO provided that Huber could exchange the goodwill for shares in the company if he retired at a reasonable age. However, any goodwill would be forfeited if Huber left LFUSA voluntarily or was terminated due to "unsatisfactory performance." Huber was the only LFUSA employee ever offered the opportunity to participate in a CSO. In 2003, Huber, on behalf of LFUSA, purchased a $1,000,000 term life insurance policy on himself. The policy designated LFUSA as the owner and fifty-percent beneficiary and Huber's parents collectively as a fifty-percent beneficiary. In 2006, Huber amended the policy, reducing its value to $750,000. Huber then converted the remaining $250,000 into a whole life policy and designated himself and LFUSA as the owners of the policy and LFUSA and his wife each as fifty-percent beneficiaries.

By 2010, LFUSA had grown significantly, but Huber's relationship with the company had begun deteriorating. In March 2010, Monika Leniger–Sherratt, LFA's group general manager, conducted a workforce planning review of LFUSA. After interviewing key individuals, Leniger–Sherratt concluded that LFUSA lacked communication and formal meeting procedures within management and there was confusion about Huber's direction for the company. Additionally, Huber was known to micromanage staff without consulting department heads. After the review, Huber met with the LFA board, which recommended that he hire a second-in-command to aid in his vice-president responsibilities. Huber did not follow that recommendation.

In July 2010, LFUSA's financial officer, Hope Coleman, reported to Leniger–Sherratt that Huber had instructed her to falsify a backorder report that was to be presented at a LFA board meeting. At the meeting, Huber reported that the backorders for 2010 totaled $1.1 million. However, Coleman had given Leniger–Sherratt a report showing that the backorders for 2010 were actually around $2.4 million. In August, Huber again met with the LFA board. The board questioned Huber about the backorder report and he denied knowing that the backorders totaled $2.4 million for 2010. After the meeting the LFA board restructured LFUSA's management, replacing Huber's role as vice president with a managing board referred to as the Organization Managing Group ("OMG"). At that time, Huber was made Director of Research & Development and he retained a position on the OMG. Despite the management change, the LFA board received complaints that Huber continued to act as though he was vice president and make major business decisions without consulting the OMG. Additionally, the board received complaints that Huber was hostile toward staff.

In February 2011, LFUSA requested that Huber sign the NDA. In the NDA, Huber agreed not to compete with LFUSA during his employment and for twelve months after employment. Huber also agreed not to disclose confidential information and to assign his rights in any intellectual property to LFUSA. The NDA also provided that if Huber was terminated he would receive twelve months' pay as long as he was not terminated for performance related issues or summarily dismissed.²

In May 2011, due to continued complaints from LFUSA employees, the LFA board removed Huber from the OMG, but allowed him to retain his position as Director of Research & Development. Huber was also encouraged to take a two-month vacation. While Huber was on leave, several LFUSA employees expressed concern about Huber returning to LFUSA and threatened to leave the company. On August 1, 2011, Dennis and Leniger–Sherratt informed Huber that he would be terminated effective August 1, 2012. Leniger–Sherratt, in a letter dated August 3, 2011, memorialized this conversation and documented performance issues which formed the basis for Huber's termination, including: not being transparent with the LFA board, being hostile toward LFUSA staff, and directing the financial officer to falsify the backorder report in 2010. Dennis and Huber agreed that from August 2011 to August 2012, Huber would receive his full salary and benefits, but Huber would not return to work at LFUSA. Instead, Huber was to explore future business opportunities for him and Dennis outside of LFUSA. Huber's termination became effective one year later on August 1, 2012, and Huber sought to collect the goodwill benefit under the CSO and twelve months' pay under the NDA. LFUSA refused to pay Huber.

On August 27, 2012, Huber filed suit against LFUSA for breach of contract and unpaid wages under the Idaho Wage Claims Act ("IWCA"). Huber amended his complaint on May 29, 2013, to add claims for wrongful termination and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Additionally, Huber added a claim under ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., alleging that the CSO was a deferred compensation plan under ERISA and LFUSA was in violation of ERISA for interfering with his rights therein. The parties agreed to proceed with a bench trial.

Prior to trial, both Huber and LFUSA moved for partial summary judgment. In July 2013, Huber asked the district court to summarily rule that: (1) the CSO was a pension plan subject to ERISA and, therefore, his rights had vested and were not subject to forfeiture; and (2) the amount owed under the NDA was wages under the IWCA and, therefore, subject to trebling under Idaho Code section 45–615. Prior to a ruling on Huber's motion, the parties stipulated that the CSO was a deferred compensation plan under ERISA. However, LFUSA argued that the CSO was a "top hat" plan and, therefore, exempt from ERISA's vesting and anti-forfeiture provisions. The district court ruled that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the CSO was a top hat plan and subject to the anti-forfeiture provisions of ERISA, but held that the amount owed under the NDA was not wages and, therefore, not subject to trebling under Idaho Code section 45–615.

In August 2013, LFUSA asked the district court to summarily rule that the CSO was a top hat plan under ERISA and to dismiss Huber's claim for wrongful termination of employment. The district court held that the CSO was a top hat plan and, therefore, was exempt from ERISA's vesting and anti-forfeiture provisions. The district court found that whether Huber would recover under the CSO depended on whether Huber had forfeited the benefit by being terminated for "unsatisfactory performance." Additionally, the district court dismissed Huber's claim for wrongful termination.

Trial was held from October 21 through October 30, 2013. As the issues had been significantly limited by the district court's rulings on summary judgment, the trial focused primarily on two issues: (1) whether Huber was terminated for unsatisfactory performance and, therefore, forfeited the goodwill benefit under the CSO and (2) whether Huber was terminated for performance issues or summarily dismissed and, therefore, was not owed any compensation under the NDA. The district court concluded that Huber was owed $180,000 (twelve months'...