Smith v. Glenns Ferry Highway Dist.
| Decision Date | 28 April 2020 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 46180 |
| Citation | 462 P.3d 1147,166 Idaho 683 |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
| Parties | Joanie SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross Respondent, v. GLENNS FERRY HIGHWAY DISTRICT, Defendant-Respondent-Cross Appellant. |
Hepworth Law Offices, Boise, for appellant Joanie Smith. J. Grady Hepworth argued.
Naylor & Hales, P.C., Boise, for respondent Glenns Ferry Highway District. Tyler D. Williams argued.
This case arises out of a claim for wrongful termination in violation of Idaho's Whistleblower Act, Idaho Code sections 6-2101 to 6-2109. Joanie Smith was employed by the Glenns Ferry Highway District (the District) when she witnessed the District's office manager overpaying herself on several occasions. Smith reported the overpayments to the District's superintendent. Sometime after Smith reported these overpayments, the District terminated Smith's employment. Smith filed suit, alleging adverse employment action in the form of discharge.
During trial, the trial court ruled it would use the jury in an advisory capacity concerning any front pay damages. At trial, the jury returned a special verdict for Smith, awarding her both back pay and front pay. Following the jury's verdict, the trial court rejected the jury's verdict awarding front pay, and entered a reduced award. The trial court reasoned that (1) the jury's verdict with respect to front pay was advisory because front pay is an equitable remedy when awarded in lieu of reinstatement, (2) Smith had not properly pleaded "failure to promote" as an adverse action in addition to discharge, and (3) the jury had incorrectly used an erroneous full-time employment status in calculating front pay. The trial court also reduced Smith's requested attorney fees to an amount less than she had contracted to pay. Smith unsuccessfully moved for post-judgment relief. She now appeals. The District cross-appeals, asserting that the issue of back pay also sounded in equity, and that the trial court should have reduced the jury award of back pay. For the reasons set forth below, we vacate the judgment of the trial court and remand with instructions in accordance with this opinion.
Smith was hired by the District in August 2007. She was hired on a part-time basis to assist Linda Jensen—the office manager at the District—in managing the office. Smith worked part-time, was paid hourly, and did not enjoy any job-related benefits. Smith typically only worked two days a week, filling in full-time when Jensen went on vacation or when Jensen was ill. Smith's responsibilities increased between 2007 and 2016, except for a brief period in 2009 when she was laid off by the District due to the recession. Even though her employment had been terminated, Smith continued to contribute her time to the District on a volunteer basis. By the end of Smith's employment in 2016, she was working two days a week, eight hours a day.
In March 2016, Jensen announced her "semi-retirement" at a District Commissioner's meeting. Jensen had apparently communicated to the District Commissioners "sometime in February or early March of 2016" that in Jensen's opinion, Smith was not ready to take over as office manager.
In late March 2016, Smith observed Jensen issue herself two payroll checks. The first payroll check purportedly represented Jensen's unused vacation time, while the second purportedly represented Jensen's final paycheck as a full-time employee. However, the checks issued to Jensen exceeded the amount she was lawfully due. In total, the overpayments exceeded $5,000.
Smith reported these payroll errors to Jim Gluch, the District's superintendent. Gluch, in turn, reported the error to the District's Commissioners, and the Commissioners directed Jensen to correct the error by working with the District's accountant to calculate the correct amount due. However, Jensen never contacted the District's accountant, and instead recalculated the amount she thought she owed the District. Jensen deducted this amount from a subsequent paycheck. This was apparently Jensen's only attempt to repay the District for the overpayment and it did not match the amount Smith contends Jensen was over-paid.
Jensen "semi-retired" at the end of March 2016, but was hired as a part-time employee by the District on April 11, 2016. Jensen's part-time employment was on a contract basis for "at least one year." Smith and Jensen continued to share office duties, but following Smith's reporting of Jensen's overpayment, their work relationship deteriorated. During one workday in April 2016, Smith maintained she received a telephone call from Jensen, in which Jensen warned Smith that Smith, Gluch, and the rest of the Commissioners should "watch their back." Jensen also left notes on Smith's desk about work assignments that Smith found to be harassing or offensive.
In May 2016, Smith made a written request to Gluch, who by then was Smith's direct supervisor, for an increase of her hourly wage to $19. The request was presented to the Commissioners in a District executive meeting, where they granted her a pay raise to $18 per hour. The pay raise was to take effect in July 2016. At this meeting, the Commissioners also evidently decided to post an advertisement for Jensen's replacement. On July 20, 2016, an advertisement for the position with the District was posted in the local paper.
Throughout July 2016, Smith spoke with Gluch on several occasions about wanting to retire. On July 17, 2016, Smith posted on Facebook that she had decided to retire.1 On July 20, 2016, Smith applied for the posted position on the date the classified ad was published. However, sometime in July 2016, she also wrote and placed a letter of resignation in her personnel file, although she did not deliver it to anyone. The letter was dated August 1, 2016, and stated that her last day of work would be August 31, 2016. Sometime between July 20 and July 26, 2016, Smith called Gluch and requested that he remove the letter from her personnel file and shred it. Gluch stated that he would destroy the letter; however, he did not. In addition, he subsequently disclosed the letter's contents to the Commissioners.
Around the time that the contents of the resignation letter were disclosed to the Commissioners, Jensen allegedly found billing errors made by Smith. On or around July 25, 2016, a special executive meeting was held where Jensen spoke with the Commissioners about Smith.
On July 26, 2016, Gluch went to Smith's house and delivered a Notice of Leave with Pay Pending Investigation. The Notice alleged that Smith had "acted, omitted acts, or otherwise performed in ways which are contrary to the expectations or the standard of conduct for Glenns Ferry Highway District employees." No additional details were provided. Gluch testified that Smith was suspended because of the billing errors Jensen had purportedly found, but Smith testified that she believed she had not made any significant errors in her work. A letter from Smith dated July 26, 2016, stated that she had turned in her keys and described the location of paperwork for ongoing projects.
On August 8, 2016, Gluch again went to Smith's house and delivered a Notice of Termination. The Notice of Termination stated only "that it is in the best interests of you and the Glenns Ferry Highway District ... that your employment be terminated." Smith was paid her normal hours and hourly pay through the end of August.
On August 10, 2016, Smith wrote a letter to Gluch, responding to the Notice of Termination. In this letter she pointed out that the Notice contained no indication why she had been dismissed, and she stated that she was "being [retaliated] against for" reporting Jensen's overpayment to herself in March 2016.
Around September 2016, Lucille Allen was hired by the Commissioners as the office employee. She had applied for the position that had been advertised in the local paper on August 1, 2016. Allen worked thirty-two hours a week initially until Jensen's one-year contract was complete and Allen was fully trained, at which point Allen worked forty hours a week. Allen received benefits and all annual raises awarded to a full-time employee.
Following her termination by the District, Smith looked for comparable employment in the Glenns Ferry area. She was unable to secure employment until August 2017, when she was hired as a substitute teacher for the Glenns Ferry School District on an on-call basis.
On December 12, 2016, Smith filed a complaint against the District. Smith alleged a violation of the Idaho Whistleblower Act, and demanded a jury trial. Smith also requested past and future lost wages and benefits, reinstatement "to a full time position," in addition to costs and fees and other damages.
On December 23, 2016, the District answered the complaint, and also demanded a jury trial. On January 31, 2017, the District and Smith entered into a stipulation of scheduling and planning, agreeing to try the case before a twelve-person jury. District Judge Medema issued a scheduling order on February 13, 2017, setting the case for trial before a jury.2 Following discovery, the District moved for summary judgment on October 24, 2017. Summary judgment was denied on December 5, 2017.
Shortly before trial was to begin, the District filed a motion in limine and a trial brief. The District's motion in limine primarily sought to preclude Smith from seeking front pay or non-economic damages. The District argued that if front pay were allowed, it should be limited to Smith's actual pay rate as a part-time employee at the time of Smith's termination, and should not include evidence of a full-time salary with benefits. In response, Smith argued that the Idaho Whistleblower Act permitted recovery of "future lost wages," due to the identical language used in the Idaho Human Rights Act, which the Idaho...
To continue reading
Request your trial