Hughes v. Mountain States Tel. and Tel. Co., 83CA0014
Decision Date | 26 July 1984 |
Docket Number | No. 83CA0014,83CA0014 |
Citation | 686 P.2d 814 |
Parties | 117 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3079 Edward Joe HUGHES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MOUNTAIN STATES TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, d/b/a Mountain Bell, Defendant-Appellee. . II |
Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Maurice J. Harmon, Grand Junction, for plaintiff-appellant.
David T. Fisher, Denver, for defendant-appellee.
The plaintiff, Edward Joe Hughes, was an employee of Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Company (Mountain Bell) until August 5, 1981, when he was terminated. Hughes filed this action alleging a claim for nonpayment of wages contrary to § 8-4-104, C.R.S., a claim for breach of employment contract, and three claims premised on the allegation that he had been "denied ... due process and equal protection of the laws, contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 2, Section 25 of the Colorado Constitution."
Mountain Bell moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted. The trial court granted the motion and Hughes appeals. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Mountain Bell, during oral argument, conceded that the trial court erred in dismissing Hughes' first claim for relief based on alleged violation of § 8-4-104, C.R.S., and we agree. Therefore, we need not address those issues.
In his second claim for relief, Hughes alleges that he was terminated in violation of implied terms in his employment contract. As the trial court ruled, indefinite employment contracts, such as was at issue here, are fully executory and terminable at the will of either party. Justice v. Stanley Aviation Corp., 35 Colo.App. 1, 530 P.2d 984 (1974); see also Lampe v. Presbyterian Medical Center, 41 Colo.App. 465, 590 P.2d 513 (1978). Hence, dismissal of this claim was proper.
Even if we assume that Hughes' remaining three claims for relief are based on the provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he has failed to allege state action which is a prerequisite to a cognizable claim for relief under those statutory provisions. Each of these three claims is grounded on the allegation that Mountain Bell is "a quasi-public employer by virtue of its regulation by the State of Colorado's Public Service Commission." We hold that these allegations are not sufficient to show the necessary state action.
As stated in Martin v. Pacific Northwest Bell, 441 F.2d 1116 (9th Cir.1971):
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Continental Air Lines, Inc. v. Keenan
...567 F.Supp. 1331 (D.Colo.1983); Johnson v. Jefferson County Board of Health, 662 P.2d 463 (Colo.1983); Hughes v. Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Co., 686 P.2d 814 (Colo.App.1984); Justice v. Stanley Aviation Corp., 35 Colo.App. 1, 530 P.2d 984 (1974); Lampe v. Presbyterian Medical C......
-
Allen v. Dayco Products, Inc., Civ. A. No. 90-F-260.
...do not transform an employment at will arrangement into a contractual responsibility. Id.; Hughes v. Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Co., 686 P.2d 814, 815 (Colo. App.1984). This statement may have implied continued employment. Yet it did not mention duration or a termination date. ......
-
Schur v. Storage Technology Corp., 92CA1825
...upon prior decisions such as Johnson v. Jefferson County Board of Health, 662 P.2d 463 (Colo.1983) and Hughes v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co., 686 P.2d 814 (Colo.App.1984), said An employee who is hired in Colorado for an indefinite period of time is an 'at will employee,' whos......
-
Colorado Law of Retaliatory Discharge and Handicap Discrimination
...1983); Johnson v. Jefferson County Board of Health, 662 P.2d 463 (Colo. 1983);Hughes v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co., 686 P.2d 814 (Colo.App. 1984); Justice v. Stanley Aviation Corp., 530 P.2d 984 (Colo.App. 1974); Lampe v. Presbyterian Medical Center, 590 P.2d 513 (Colo.App. 1......
-
A Federal Genie from a State Bottle: Section 1983 in the Colorado State Courts
...a state court for an ex parte prejudgment attachment of the plaintiff's property and the sheriff executed the resulting writ. 26. 686 P.2d 814 (Colo.App. 1984). 27. Id. 28. Espinoza, supra, note 10 at 462; Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635 (1980). 29. 644 P.2d 51 (Colo.App. 1981). 30. Id. at 54......