Lillig v. Becton-Dickinson

• Decision Date: 17 April 1986
• Docket Number: BECTON-DICKINSON,No. 50912-3,50912-3
• Citation: 105 Wn.2d 653,717 P.2d 1371
• Parties: Michael E. LILLIG, Petitioner, v., a foreign corporation, Respondent. En Banc
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

Page 653

105 Wn.2d 653

717 P.2d 1371

Michael E. LILLIG, Petitioner, v. BECTON-DICKINSON, a foreign corporation, Respondent.

No. 50912-3.

Supreme Court of Washington,

En Banc.

April 17, 1986.

Diamond & Sylvester, James Thomas, Seattle, for petitioner.

Perkins, Coie, Stone, Olsen & Williams, David Wagoner, Dieter G. Struzyna, Seattle, for respondent.

DOLLIVER, Chief Justice.

We accepted this case for review to determine whether at trial there was sufficient evidence to support a finding of abuse of a qualified privilege and to support a denial of exemplary damages pursuant to RCW 49.52.070. We find no evidence in the record sufficient to overcome the defendant's qualified privilege and we find sufficient evidence of a bona fide dispute adequate to uphold a denial of exemplary damages. We, therefore, affirm the Court of Appeals.

I

Michael Lillig worked for Becton-Dickinson (B-D) as a medical supply salesman. In addition to salary, B-D offered an incentive bonus plan. B-D reserved the right to make adjustments in the bonus plan in cases of windfall volume, adverse economic factors, or new product sales. The plan provided that "[n]o bonus will be paid to any sales representative who is not on roll on December 1, 1979."

In the fall of 1979, Regional Sales Manager James Krachenfels asked Lillig to resign. Unwilling to forego his bonus, Lillig said he would resign before December 1, 1979 if given written assurance his resignation would not affect his 1979 bonus. On November 9, 1979, Krachenfels gave Lillig the following handwritten assurance: "Be advised that you will not be underpaid on your 79' bonus because of resigning before the Dec. 1st guideline." Lillig tendered his resignation before December 1, 1979. On December 13, 1979, B-D sent Lillig a check in the amount of $3,950. By way of an attachment, B-D explained that this "Incentive Compensation Check ... represents 25% of your $15,800.00 base salary."

On May 19, 1980, Lillig commenced this suit for breach of contract. In the course of pretrial discovery, Lillig discovered a memorandum in his B-D personnel file in which Krachenfels set forth the reasons behind the decision to ask for Lillig's resignation. Among other things, Krachenfels wrote that "[Lillig] lied to a dealer ..." After finding this memo, Lillig amended his complaint to add a claim for libel.

The trial court granted Lillig's motions for partial summary judgment on several issues. The court found the 1979 plan and Krachenfels' written assurance were both enforceable contracts, that B-D had breached these contracts, and that the amount of bonus moneys to which Lillig was entitled was to be computed according to the formula set forth in the plan. The court also found Krachenfels had the apparent authority to make the written assurance concerning the effect of Lillig's resignation on his 1979 bonus.

The amount of the bonus due under the plan was contested. At trial, counsel for B-D admitted, in opening and closing statements, that Lillig ought to have been paid a bonus of $9,854.23. Lillig asserted he was entitled to a bonus of $14,556. B-D contended this latter figure failed to account for numerous adjustments to the bonus pool amount for variables such as windfall sales volume and sales attributable to managers and other nonsales personnel.

As to the libel claim, testimony revealed Krachenfels' statement about Lillig's lie stemmed from a conversation he had overheard between Lillig and a dealer. Krachenfels testified that, when he confronted Lillig about the matter, Lillig responded, in effect, that it was of no consequence. Krachenfels interpreted this as an admission and did not investigate further. Lillig asserted he did not lie and that his remarks to the dealer were misunderstood by Krachenfels. He also testified he thought he had cleared up the misunderstanding to Krachenfels' satisfaction.

The jury determined Lillig was entitled to a bonus in the amount of $14,556; it awarded him $12,685 for special damages as a result of B-D's breach of contract; it also returned a $50,000 verdict for Lillig on his libel claim.

B-D moved for a new trial or judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Lillig moved for exemplary damages under RCW 49.52.070 and attorney fees under either RCW 49.48.030 or RCW 49.52.070. The court denied these motions and entered a judgment in the amount of $77,241, less $3,950 (the amount B-D paid prior to commencement of this action).

B-D appealed the judgment for libel. Lillig cross-appealed the trial court's denial of statutory exemplary damages and attorney fees on his bonus claim. On B-D's appeal, the Court of Appeals concluded Lillig's proof failed to overcome the employer's qualified privilege. The court reversed the judgment fixing damages for libel and dismissed that cause of action. On Lillig's cross appeal, the Court of Appeals determined Lillig was entitled to attorney fees under RCW 49.48.030, but held the trial court properly denied exemplary damages under RCW 49.52.070.

II Libel

Lillig challenges the Court of Appeals dismissal of his libel award. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's award stating there was no evidence presented in the record to overcome B-D's qualified privilege.

In reviewing a trial court's record, the reviewing court must take great care not to substitute its own judgment. State v. O'Connell, 83 Wash.2d 797, 523 P.2d 872 (1974).

As we have said on so many occasions, this court will overturn a jury's verdict only rarely and then only when it is clear that there was no substantial evidence upon which the jury could have rested its verdict.... The credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to the evidence are matters within the province of the jury and even if convinced that a wrong verdict has been rendered, the reviewing court will not substitute its judgment for that of the jury, so long as there was evidence which, if believed, would support the verdict rendered.

(Citations omitted.) State v. O'Connell, at 839, 523 P.2d 872.

It was undisputed that defendant Krachenfels had a qualified privilege. To overcome this privilege, at the time of this trial, the plaintiff had the burden of proving the defendant made the statement in bad faith or without an honest belief in the statement. Gem Trading Co. v. Cudahy Corp., 92 Wash.2d 956, 603 P.2d 828 (1979). The defendant's honest belief could arise either from fair and impartial investigation or from other reasonable grounds; the plaintiff must offer clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. Owens v. Scott Pub'g Co., 46 Wash.2d 666, 284 P.2d 296 (1955). Subsequent to this trial, we adopted the rule of the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 600, at 288 (1977), holding that proof of an abuse of a qualified privilege must be established by clear and convincing evidence showing the defendant's knowledge or reckless disregard as to the falsity of the statement. Bender v. Seattle, 99 Wash.2d 582, 601, 664 P.2d 492 (1983). Cf. Turngren v. King Cy., 104 Wash.2d 293, 705 P.2d 258 (1985) (negligence of defendant used as a method to determine whether defendant knowingly or recklessly made the statement).

To uphold the trial court, there must be substantial evidence upon which the jury could have rested its verdict. The test in Washington for substantial evidence requires it to be in "sufficient quantum to persuade a fair-minded person of the truth of the declared premise." Ridgeview Properties v. Starbuck, 96 Wash.2d 716, 719, 638 P.2d 1231 (1982).

Plaintiff offered no evidence to show defendant Krachenfels was without reasonable grounds in his belief of the lying incident. The thrust of the plaintiff's evidence went to establish the falsity of the libelous statement; this is not enough to overcome the privilege. Gem Trading Co. v. Cudahy Corp., supra; Moore v. Smith, 89 Wash.2d 932, 578 P.2d 26 (1978).

The record before us is devoid of any evidence to persuade a "fair-minded" person under either the Gem Trading Co. negligence standard or the actual knowledge or reckless disregard standard of Bender that the defendant abused its qualified privilege. The Court of Appeals properly reversed the jury's libel verdict under either "abuse" standard.

III

Exemplary Damages

The pertinent statutes on this issue read:

Any employer or officer, vice principal or agent of any employer, whether said employer be in private business or an elected public official, who

* * *

(2) Wilfully and with intent to deprive the employee of any part of his wages, shall pay any employee a lower wage than the wage such employer is obligated to pay such employee by any statute, ordinance, or contract; ...

Shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

RCW 49.52.050.

Any employer and any officer, vice principal or agent of any employer who shall violate any of the provisions of subdivisions (1) and (2) of RCW 49.52.050 shall be liable in a civil action by the aggrieved employee or his assignee to judgment for twice the amount of the wages unlawfully rebated or withheld by way of exemplary damages, together with costs of suit and a reasonable sum for attorney's fees ...

RCW 49.52.070.

For the purposes of this case we will assume the bonus in this case did constitute wages within the meaning of the statutes. RCW 49.52.070, however, provides double damages only for the willful withholding of wages. McAnulty v. Snohomish Sch. Dist. 201, 9 Wash.App. 834, 515 P.2d 523 (1973). In McAnulty the court held an employer does not willfully withhold wages if a bona fide dispute exists as to obligation of payment. The nonpayment of wages is willful when it is the result of a knowing and intentional action and not the result of a bona fide dispute. Ebling v. Gove's Cove, Inc., 34 Wash.App. 495, 663 P.2d 132 (1983). Ebling held the determination of a bona fide dispute to be a question of fact and added that a reviewing court will uphold the trier of fact when any reasonable view substantiated findings, even if there may...