Neighbors v. Kirksville College of Osteopathic Medicine, WD

• Decision Date: 11 June 1985
• Docket Number: No. WD,WD
• Citation: 694 S.W.2d 822
• Parties: Donna NEIGHBORS, Appellant, v. KIRKSVILLE COLLEGE OF OSTEOPATHIC MEDICINE, W.R. Trowbridge, Sueanna M. Hannah and Connie Roberts, Respondents. 36465.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

Page 822

694 S.W.2d 822

Donna NEIGHBORS, Appellant, v. KIRKSVILLE COLLEGE OF OSTEOPATHIC MEDICINE, W.R. Trowbridge Sueanna M. Hannah and Connie Roberts, Respondents.

No. WD 36465.

Missouri Court of Appeals Western District.

June 11, 1985.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to

Supreme Court Overruled and Denied

July 30, 1985.

Application to Transfer Denied

Sept. 10, 1985.

Earl W. Brown, III, Stockard, Andereck, Hauck, Sharp & Evans, Trenton, for appellant.

Ronald R. McMillin, Carson, Monaco, Coil, Riley and McMillin, Jefferson City, for respondents.

Before TURNAGE, C.J., and SOMERVILLE and MANFORD, JJ.

TURNAGE, Chief Judge.

Donna Neighbors filed a multiple count petition for damages based on her termination of employment by the Kirksville College of Osteopathic Medicine and its issuance of a service letter. All but three of the counts were disposed of and the court sustained a motion to dismiss those counts. On appeal, Neighbors contends that one count stated a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress because the service letter falsely stated the reasons for her termination, that one count stated a cause of action in libel, and that one count stated a cause of action in contract for breach of an implied duty of good faith or in tort for wrongful discharge. Affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded.

Neighbors was employed as a clinic manager by the College when she was terminated. At her request, the College issued a service letter pursuant to § 290.140, RSMo 1978. The letter stated that Neighbors was terminated because the College had reasonable cause to believe that she had breached the confidentiality of a patient at the clinic.

In one count of her petition, Neighbors alleged that the College caused her emotional distress by stating untrue grounds for her termination in the service letter. Neighbors contends that the receipt of this letter, which she alleges stated a false reason for her termination, and which accused her of breaching a patient's confidentiality, caused her to suffer emotional distress and mental injury.

Neighbors does not dispute that she was an employee at will and she does not rely upon any contract of employment for a definite term, nor does she rely upon any statutory ground which would bar her termination. Under these circumstances, the supreme court in Dake v. Tuell, 687 S.W.2d 191 (Mo. banc 1985), reaffirmed the law of Missouri that an employee at will may be terminated at any time for any reason, or for no reason, unless a contrary statutory provision exists. Here, a contract for a definite term does not exist, and Neighbors does not allege any statutory ground that would bar her termination. In Dake, the court stated that it would not allow the employee at will doctrine to be subverted by cloaking a claim for wrongful termination under the guise of the prima facie tort doctrine. Id. at 193. It would likewise subvert the law of this state to allow a claim for termination by an at will employee to be brought under the guise of an action for emotional distress. New York follows the same rule as Missouri in holding that at will employees may be terminated at any time. In Murphy v. American Home Products Corp., 58 N.Y.2d 293, 461 N.Y.S.2d 232, 236[4-6], 448 N.E.2d 86, 90[4-6] (1983), the court held that an at will employee could not maintain an action for the infliction of emotional distress resulting from his termination. Because Neighbors could be terminated at any time for any reason, or for no reason, she may not maintain an action for emotional distress resulting from her termination.

Neighbors also alleged in her petition that her employment was subject to an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and that her termination was a breach of this agreement. The reasons heretofore stated concerning the count for emotional distress apply to this claim for relief. Missouri law...