Stacey Bird v. Cascade Cnty.

• Decision Date: 27 December 2016
• Docket Number: DA 16-0162
• Parties: STACEY BIRD, an individual, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CASCADE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Montana; and CASCADE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, the governing body of Cascade County, Defendants and Appellees.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

386 Mont. 69

386 P.3d 602

2016 MT 345

STACEY BIRD, an individual, Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.CASCADE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Montana; and CASCADE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, the governing body of Cascade County, Defendants and Appellees.

DA 16-0162

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted on Briefs: October 19, 2016

Decided: December 27, 2016

For Appellant: Hollie Del Vecchio, Ph D, Adaptive Law Firm PS, Mount Vernon, Washington

For Appellees: Mark F. Higgins, Jordan Y. Crosby, Ugrin, Alexander, Zadick & Higgins, P.C., Great Falls, Montana

Justice Beth Baker delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶ 1 The Cascade County Board of Commissioners terminated Stacey Bird from her position as the County's Human Resources Director. Bird filed a wrongful discharge claim against the County and the Board of Commissioners. The Eighth Judicial District Court held that the County had good cause to terminate Bird. It granted the County summary judgment. Bird appeals on the ground that a jury must determine the issue of good cause.

¶ 2 We affirm.

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

¶ 3 The County hired Bird as Human Resources Director in October 2008. Bird directly supervised four employees and managed a $350,000 budget. Bird oversaw typical human resource functions, including: supervising payroll for all County employees; administering and enforcing collective bargaining agreements; ensuring compliance with state and federal employment laws; drafting and implementing human resource policies; and administering the County's benefits programs. Bird also was responsible for redrafting the County's Policy and Procedures Manual, which she never completed.

¶ 4 As a department head, Bird reported to the Board of County Commissioners. In December 2010, the Board sent Bird a letter expressing several elected officials' concerns regarding their working relationship with the Human Resources Department. The letter identified four issues the elected officials wanted Bird to address:

• Improving the transparency of the hiring process;

• Ensuring that engagement in preferential hiring practices is not occurring;

• Aligning personnel policies with established procedures; and

• Seeking a more collaborative approach to problem-solving.

Board members also met with Bird individually to discuss how they could improve their working relationship with her.

¶ 5 In October 2012, a group of department heads—which Bird helped to organize—wrote a letter to the Board requesting to meet and discuss various issues they had regarding the "appearance of unfair, disparate, and unequal treatment regarding merit and market adjustments" to compensation. The Board declined to meet with the department heads as a group given that the department heads "represent[ed] six different departments, each having a diverse range of responsibilities, job descriptions, budgets, number of subordinates, educational backgrounds, training, experience, and longevity with the County." The Board instead offered to meet with them individually to evaluate their compensation. In response, these department heads took "a unanimous vote of ‘no confidence’ " regarding two of the three Board members. Shortly after the "no confidence" vote, two other department heads informed the County Attorney of their concern that the group had leaked confidential employee information to the media. The County Attorney recommended that the Board conduct an investigation into the allegations.

¶ 6 On October 26, 2012, the County placed Bird on administrative leave while it investigated allegations that she used public time and resources to organize support for one of the Commissioner's election opponents, disclosed confidential employment information, and disclosed or used confidential information to further her personal economic interests. Upon conclusion of the investigation, the County sent Bird a "due process" letter that provided detailed information regarding the results of the investigation, notified her of additional allegations that were investigated, and advised her of potential disciplinary actions. Bird responded in writing, denying the allegations.

¶ 7 On November 27, 2012, the County sent Bird a termination letter signed by two of the three Board members. The six-page termination letter addressed Bird's response to the "due process" letter and further detailed the reasons for her discharge. The reasons included: use of public time and resources for political purposes, disclosure of confidential employee information, use and disclosure of confidential information to further her own economic interests, improper management of staff, implementation of policies without the Board's formal approval, inconsistent implementation of informal policies, failure to update the Policy and Procedures Manual, and failure to understand key aspects of her position.

¶ 8 A year later, Bird filed a complaint against the County pursuant to the Wrongful Discharge from Employment Act. The County moved for summary judgment. The District Court concluded that, as Human Resources Director, Bird held a sensitive managerial position. It held that the County had good cause to terminate her. The court therefore granted the County's motion and entered judgment in its favor. Bird appeals.

STANDARDS OF REVIEW

¶ 9 We review summary judgment rulings de novo, applying the standards set forth in M. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3). Moe v. Butte–Silver Bow Cnty. , 2016 MT 103, ¶ 14, 383 Mont. 297, 371 P.3d 415. Summary judgment is appropriate when the moving party demonstrates both the absence of any genuine issues of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. M. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3) ; Moe , ¶ 14. Once the moving party has met its burden, the opposing party must present material and substantial evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact. McConkey v. Flathead Elec. Coop. , 2005 MT 334, ¶ 19, 330 Mont. 48, 125 P.3d 1121. We will draw all reasonable inferences from the offered evidence in favor of the party opposing summary judgment; but conclusory statements, speculative assertions, and mere denials are insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment. Moe , ¶ 14. We review a district court's conclusions of law to determine whether they are correct. Moe , ¶ 14.

DISCUSSION

¶ 10 Whether the District Court erred in ruling on summary judgment that the County had good cause to terminate Bird's employment.

¶ 11 The Wrongful Discharge from Employment Act provides, in pertinent part, that "[a] discharge is wrongful ... if ... the discharge was not for good cause." Section 39–2–904(1), MCA. The Act defines "good cause" as "reasonable job-related grounds for dismissal based on a failure to satisfactorily perform job duties, disruption of the employer's operation, or other legitimate business reason." Section 39–2–903(5), MCA. A legitimate business reason is a reason "that is not false, whimsical, arbitrary, or capricious, and one that must have some logical relationship to the needs of the business."

Davis v. State , 2015 MT 264, ¶ 10, 381 Mont. 59, 357 P.3d 320. After an employer presents evidence showing good cause for the discharge, the employee must present evidence establishing either that "the given reason for the discharge is not good cause in and of itself, or that the given reason is a pretext and not the honest reason for the discharge." Becker v. Rosebud Operating Servs. , 2008 MT 285, ¶ 24, 345 Mont. 368, 191 P.3d 435 (citation and internal quotes omitted). Summary judgment is appropriate in wrongful discharge actions when "the undisputed facts show good cause for discharge from employment." Moe , ¶ 50 (citing Davis , ¶ 14 ; Becker , ¶ 30 ).

¶ 12 An employer has the right "to exercise discretion over whom it will employ and keep in employment."

Sullivan v. Cont'l Constr. of Mont., LLC , 2013 MT 106, ¶ 18, 370 Mont. 8, 299 P.3d 832 (citation and internal quotations omitted). To give effect to this right, we have warned against the courts becoming "involved in the day-to-day employment decisions of a business regarding its management." Sullivan , ¶ 18. Thus, we have held repeatedly that "[e]mployers have the broadest discretion when dealing with managerial employees." Moe , ¶ 54 ; accord Baumgart v. State , 2014 MT 194, ¶ 39, 376 Mont. 1, 332 P.3d 225 ; Sullivan , ¶ 18 ; McConkey , ¶ 26 ; Buck v. Billings Mont. Chevrolet , 248 Mont. 276, 283, 811 P.2d 537, 541 (1991). In determining whether an employee occupies a managerial position, we consider factors such as the employee's responsibilities in running the organization's day-to-day operations, the employee's discretion in undertaking those responsibilities, the level of trust placed in the employee, and the nature of the relationship between the employee and her superiors. Baumgart , ¶ 39 ; Sullivan , ¶¶ 24–25 ; McConkey , ¶¶ 30–31 ; Buck , 248 Mont. at 282–83, 811 P.2d at 540–41.

¶ 13 The District Court noted that "[m]ost of Bird's summary judgment response focuses on whether she is a managerial employee under Sullivan ." The court ruled that Bird held a managerial position, stating that "Bird directed and administered human resource management services for one of Montana's largest county governments." The court found that

Bird handled such duties as hiring, discipline and termination of employees; compliance with state and federal employment laws; collective bargaining; labor relations; employee orientation; training and development; compensation; employee benefits; job analysis and evaluation; payroll procedures, operations, and requirements; workers compensation; personnel investigations; and safety and risk management.

Based on these duties, the court concluded, "It is clear that Bird occupied a ‘sensitive managerial or confidential position ... requir[ing] the exercise of broad discretion.’ " (Quoting Sullivan , ¶ 21.) The court thus held that "the County is entitled to greater deference in its decision to terminate Bird."

¶ 14 On appeal, Bird argues that the District...