Monge v. Beebe Rubber Co.

Citation316 A.2d 549,114 N.H. 130
Decision Date28 February 1974
Docket NumberNo. 6637,6637
Parties, 115 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 4755, 62 A.L.R.3d 264, 25 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 31,643 Olga MONGE v. BEEBE RUBBER COMPANY.
CourtNew Hampshire Supreme Court

Leonard & Harkaway and Jeffrey H. Mazerolle, Nashua (Mazerolle orally), for plaintiff.

Hamblett, Kerrigan, LaTourette & Lopez, Nashua (Joseph M. Kerrigan, Nashua, orally), for defendant.

LAMPRON, Justice.

Action of assumpsit to recover damages for an alleged breach of an oral contract of employment. Plaintiff was hired in September 1968 at wages of $1.84 per hour to work on a conversion machine in defendant's factory and was allegedly told that if she worked well she would get better jobs with better pay. Plaintiff claims that she was harassed by her foreman because she refused to go out with him and that his hostility, condoned if not shared by defendant's personnel manager, ultimately resulted in her being fired. Trial by jury resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $2,500. Defendant's objections to denial of its motion to set aside the verdict, for judgment n.o.v. and to various evidentiary and substantive rulings were reserved and transferred by Loughlin, J.

Plaintiff, before coming to this country in 1964, was a school teacher in Costa Rica. She came to New Hampshire in 1965, and was attending college from 7 to 10 o'clock five nights a week to qualify to teach here. She used the money she earned from her employment with the defendant on the night shift beginning at 11 o'clock for her college expenses. She was employed by the defendant in a union shop and joined the union as required after her employment, thereby becoming subject to the seniority and other rules of the union contract. After working without incident on the conversion machine for about three months, she applied to fill an opening on a press machine at higher wages. She testified that her foreman told her that if she wanted the job she would have to be 'nice'. She got the job at $2.79 per hour and claims that her foreman then asked her to go out with him, which she refused to do because she was married and had three children. After working on the press machine for about three weeks, the machine was shut down and she was put on a degreaser machine at $1.99 per hour. Her overtime was taken away, although no one else's was. She testified that when she told her foreman she needed overtime money he told her she could sweep floors. She agreed to do this and claims the foreman also made her clean the washrooms and ridiculed her.

On July 23, 1969, she ran out of boxes for her machine. When she reported this to the foreman, he told her to make her own, which she claims she could not do while keeping up her production. When she spoke to the union steward about it, the foreman ordered her back to her machine and fired her at 2:00 o'clock in the morning when she refused to comply with his order. After complaining to the union, she was reinstated with a warning.

On Saturday, July 26, she called the personnel manager at his home to tell him that on advice of her lawyer she was calling to say she would not be in on Sunday because of illness. She also called in on Sunday, July 27, to say she would not be able to work because of illness and would enter the hospital the next day. The company's records show her absent with excuse on July 28 through 31.

She testified that when she reported for work at 11:00 p.m. on the night of August 4, the personnel manager was there, although she had never seen him at the plant before at that time of day, and that he asked her 'What kind of face I got to come back?' After being at work for two and one-half hours that same night, she was found unconscious in the ladies' room and was taken to the hospital. The company records show her hospitalized for the next four days including August 8. Nothing is shown in these records regarding the next two days but they show her absent on August 11, 12 and 13 without having called in. On August 13, 1969, the personnel manager sent her a letter stating that since she failed to report for work for three consecutive days without notification to the company, she was 'deemed a voluntary quit'.

There was evidence both from the plaintiff and the foreman that she did in fact call in on Sunday, August 10, to report that she was still sick. There was also evidence that some time after defendant had refused her foreman's advances, the personnel manager had visited her at home about some annoying telephone calls she was receiving. In the course of their conversation, he told her he knew her foreman used his position to force his attentions on the female employees under his authority and he asked her 'not to make trouble.'

Plaintiff sued for breach of an employment contract for an indefinite period of time. The employer has long ruled the workplace with an iron hand by reason of the prevailing common-law rule that such a hiring is presumed to be at will and terminable at any time by either party. 53 Am.Jur.2d Master and Servant, § 43 (1970); 9 S. Williston, Contracts § 1017 (Jaeger ed. 1967); Restatement (Second) Agency § 442 (1958); see Blumrosen, Seniority and Equal Employment, 23 Rutgers L.Rev. 270 (1969). When asked to reexamine the long-standing common-law rule of property based on an ancient feudal system which fostered in a tenancy at will a relationship heavily weighted in favor of the landlord, this court did not hesitate to modify that rule to conform to modern circumstances. Kline v. Burns, 111 N.H. 87, 90, 276 A.2d 248, 250 (1971); Sargent v. Ross, 113 N.H. --, --, 308 A.2d 528 (1973).

The law governing the relations between employer and employee has similarly evolved over the years to reflect changing legal, social and economic conditions. 3A A. Corbin, Contracts § 674 at 205, 206 (1960). In this area '(w)e are in the midst of a period in which the pot boils the hardest and in the process of change the fastest.' Id. Although many of these changes have resulted from the activity and influence of labor unions, the courts cannot ignore the new climate prevailing generally in the relationship of employer and employee. See Comment, Contracts-Termination of Employment At Will-Public Policy May Modify Employer's Right to Discharge, 14 Rutgers L.Rev. 624 (1960); Blumrosen, Employee Discipline, 18 Rutgers L.Rev. 428, 431-33 (1964).

In all employment contracts, whether at will or for a definite term, the employer's interest in running his business as he sees fit must be balanced against the interest of the employee in maintaining his employment, and the public's interest in maintaining a proper balance between the two. See Note, California's Controls On Employer Abuse of Employee Rights, 22 Stanford L.Rev. 1015 (1970). We hold that a termination by the employer of a contract of employment at will which is motivated by bad faith or malice or based on retaliation is not the best interest of the economic system or the public good and constitutes a breach of the employment contract. Frampton v. Central Indiana Gas Co., 297 N.E.2d 425 (Ind.1973); see Petermann v. International Brotherhood, 174 Cal.App.2d 184, 189, 344 P.2d 25, 27 (1959); Blades, Employment At Will v. Individual Freedom: On Limiting the Abusive Exercise of Employer Power, 67 Column.L.Rev. 1404, 1418, (1967). Such a rule affords the employee a certain stability of employment and does not interfere with the employer's normal exercise of his right to discharge, which is necessary to permit him to operate his business efficiently and profitably.

The sole question on appeal is whether there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that defendant, through its agents, acted maliciously in terminating plaintiff's employment. It is the function of the jury to resolve conflicts in the testimony, Kilfoyle v. Malatesta, 101 N.H. 473, 475, 147 A.2d 111, 113 (1958); and the law is settled that a jury verdict will not be disturbed on appeal if there is evidence to support it. See O'Brien v. Public Service Co., 95 N.H. 79, 58 A.2d 507 (1948); Benoit v. Perkins, 79 N.H. 11, 104 A. 254 (1918).

The jury could draw the not-so-subtle inference from the evidence before it that the hostility of defendant's foreman and connivance of the personnel manager resulted in the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
222 cases
  • Foley v. Interactive Data Corp.
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 29 Diciembre 1988
    ...[47 Cal.3d 686] cases from this state, and two out-of-state employment cases. The out-of-state cases included Monge v. Beebe Rubber Company (1974) 114 N.H. 130, 316 A.2d 549, in which the court permitted an action for wrongful discharge but limited the plaintiff's recovery to contract damag......
  • Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 2 Junio 1980
    ...dealing" obligations (see Fortune v. National Cash Register Co. (1977) 373 Mass. 96, 364 N.E.2d 1251, 1257; cf. Monge v. Beebe Rubber Co. (1974) 114 N.H. 130, 316 A.2d 549 and past California cases have held that a breach of this implied-at-law covenant sounds in tort as well as in contract......
  • Pugh v. See's Candies, Inc.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 27 Febrero 1981
    ...489 F.Supp. 24; but cf. Agarival v. Johnson (1979) 25 Cal.3d 932, 954 955, 160 Cal.Rptr. 141, 603 P.2d 58; Monge v. Beebe Rubber Company (1974) 114 N.H. 130, 316 A.2d 549.) This issue was not raised by the parties, however, and we do not reach it.14 Moreover, it appears from the record that......
  • Porter v. City of Manchester
    • United States
    • New Hampshire Supreme Court
    • 14 Mayo 2004
    ...have characterized the common law cause of action for wrongful termination as both a contract and a tort. See Monge v. Beebe Rubber Co., 114 N.H. 130, 134, 316 A.2d 549 (1974) (contract action); Cloutier, 121 N.H. at 920, 436 A.2d 1140 (tort action). In order to determine whether the city w......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • New Hampshire's New Non-Compete Law
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 10 Enero 2013
    ...to as the "employment agreement" between these parties, particularly in the context of at-will employment. See Monge v. Beebe Rubber Co., 114 N.H. 130, 132 (1974) ("the prevailing common law rule" is that "an employment contract for an indefinite period of time ... is presumed to be at will......
1 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT