Sweitzer v. Dean, 18100

• Citation: 118 Idaho 568,798 P.2d 27
• Decision Date: 23 August 1990
• Docket Number: No. 18100,18100
• Parties: Tom SWEITZER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lee DEAN, City Manager, and City of Post Falls, Defendants-Respondents.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Idaho

Page 27

798 P.2d 27

118 Idaho 568

Tom SWEITZER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lee DEAN, City Manager, and City of Post Falls, Defendants-Respondents.

No. 18100.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

Aug. 23, 1990.

Jenkins & Leggett, Coeur d'Alene, for plaintiff-appellant. Ida R. Leggett argued.

Quane, Smith, Howard & Hull, Coeur d'Alene, for defendants-respondents. Marc A. Lyons argued.

BOYLE, Justice.

In this action based on wrongful discharge, we are called upon to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion to amend the pleadings and whether the trial court properly granted a directed verdict.

The plaintiff-appellant, Thomas E. Sweitzer, brought this action against the respondent claiming that he was constructively discharged from a position he held with the City of Post Falls. He claimed that his discharge constituted a breach of contract which deprived him of a property right to continued employment in violation of his due process rights under the Idaho Constitution. The district court granted a directed verdict in favor of the City of Post Falls on the grounds that Sweitzer had failed to file a timely notice of claim pursuant to I.C. § 50-219 and alternatively that there was insufficient evidence to support the cause of action. Sweitzer appeals this ruling.

Thomas Sweitzer was employed by the defendant/respondent, City of Post Falls (hereinafter City), as a general maintenance worker. His employment with the City began in July, 1975 and ended in 1984 when he submitted his resignation. He was fifty years old at the time his employment was terminated.

Sweitzer had initially been employed by the Street and Water Department of the City of Post Falls, Idaho. Following a brief layoff in February 1983, he was transferred to the City cemetery where his duties consisted of mowing lawns, helping with funerals, digging graves and settling grave sites. Because Sweitzer had family and friends buried in the cemetery where he worked, he claimed his tasks were troubling to him, causing stomach pains and sleep disorders. Sweitzer informed his supervisors and Lee Dean, the City Administrator and a co-defendant-respondent in this case, that the work in the cemetery was making him ill and that he had been consulting a doctor for the disorders.

Sweitzer was again laid off in November 1983 after which he requested to be assigned a position reading water meters rather than being reassigned to the cemetery. His request for the meter reading position was granted, however he declined to take the position because the salary was $250.00 less per month than he was earning as the cemetery maintenance worker. Sweitzer requested a hearing with the Post Falls City Council to discuss the meter reading position. Approximately a week later, Mr. Sweitzer was notified at 3:45 p.m. that a hearing was scheduled that evening at 7:00 p.m. At the hearing Sweitzer was told that the meter reading position was no longer available and that he would have to take the cemetery job if he wanted continued employment with the City. On April 16, 1984, Sweitzer submitted his resignation claiming that he could not accept the cemetery position due to the attendant health problems associated with working in the cemetery.

After exhausting all administrative remedies, Sweitzer submitted a Notice of Claim against the City of Post Falls on February 20, 1985. On September 17, 1985, Sweitzer filed a complaint against the City of Post Falls and Lee Dean, City Manager, claiming wrongful discharge. Sweitzer alleged that he was wrongfully discharged because of his age in violation of the Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act and I.C. § 67-5909. He also asserted claims for breach of contract, breach of an implied covenant, deprivation of a property interest without due process of law in violation of art. 1, § 13 of the Idaho Constitution, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Prior to trial Sweitzer withdrew all claims except the claims for breach of contract and violation of due process under the Idaho State Constitution.

At the close of evidence but prior to the jury commencing deliberations, Sweitzer moved to amend his complaint to assert a cause of action under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983. The trial court denied the motion to amend and granted the City's motion for a directed verdict on both claims. The directed verdict was granted in part on the basis that Sweitzer failed to file a timely notice of claim as provided in I.C. § 50-219. The trial court ruled that I.C. § 50-219 required notice be given for all claims against a municipality within 120 days after the claim arose and that there was insufficient evidence to allow the case to go to the jury on Sweitzer's other claims.

On appeal Sweitzer challenges several of the trial court's rulings. Sweitzer contends that the trial court improperly granted a directed verdict and that the trial court incorrectly ruled that I.C. § 50-219 requires filing of a notice of claim as prescribed in I.C. § 6-906. He contends that a notice of claim is required only in cases involving tort claims and that the trial court's denial of his motion to amend the complaint was an abuse of discretion. We will address each of these issues separately as well as the respondent's claim for attorney fees on appeal.

I. Time for Notice of Claims Against a Municipality

Sweitzer argues that the directed verdict in favor of the City of Post Falls was improper for two reasons. First, he contends that the trial court's reliance on Harkness v. City of Burley, 110 Idaho 353, 715 P.2d 1283 (1986), was misplaced in that I.C. § 50-219 was amended since Harkness was decided, making that decision no longer applicable. Secondly, Sweitzer argues that the trial court, in ruling on the City's motion for directed verdict, incorrectly applied the filing procedures set forth in I.C. § 6-906 on grounds that the notice requirement set forth in I.C. § 6-906 pertains only to tort claims. Sweitzer terminated his employment with the City on April 16, 1984. He filed a notice of claim against the City on February 20, 1985, which was more than ten months after his resignation. In granting a directed verdict against Sweitzer, the trial court relied upon I.C. § 50-219 as it was codified at the time Sweitzer's claim arose, which provided as follows:

Damage Claims.--All claims for damages against a city must be filed as prescribed by chapter 9, title 6, Idaho Code. Idaho Code § 6-906 sets forth the procedure for filing claims against political subdivisions and its employees and provides as follows:

Filing claims against political subdivision or employee--Time.--All claims against a political subdivision arising under this act and all claims against an employee of a political subdivision for any act or omission of the employee within the course or scope of his employment shall be presented to and filed with the clerk or secretary of the political subdivision within one hundred twenty (120) days from the date the claim arose or reasonably should have been discovered, which ever is later.

In directing a verdict in favor of the City, the trial court held Sweitzer was precluded from asserting his claims against the City for failure to provide timely notice as required by I.C. § 50-219 and § 6-906. The trial court interpreted I.C. § 50-219 to mandate that all claims against a city, tort or otherwise, must be filed pursuant to the procedure set forth in I.C. § 6-906. Since Sweitzer filed his claim approximately ten months following his resignation, i.e., the time his cause of action arose, the trial court held his claims were barred for failure to comply with the one hundred twenty days notice requirement.

In reaching its conclusion the trial court relied on Harkness v. City of Burley, 110 Idaho 353, 715 P.2d 1283 (1986), wherein this Court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of claims against the City of Burley for breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing because the plaintiff failed to provide timely notice pursuant to I.C. § 50-219. In Harkness, the plaintiff filed his notice seven months after his claim arose as opposed to the sixty days specified by I.C. § 50-219 ¹ and the trial court dismissed the claims for failure to comply with the notice requirements. Harkness appealed, asserting that the four year statute of limitations for bringing an action on an oral contract, as set forth in I.C. § 50-217, controlled over the sixty day notice period in I.C. § 50-219. This Court disagreed and affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that I.C. § 50-219 is not a statute of limitations and held that the requirement of sixty days notice of claim was applicable in addition to the specified statute of limitations.

In the present case, Sweitzer contends that Harkness v. City of Burley does not apply because I.C. § 50-219, as amended in 1983 replaced the requirements of the Idaho Tort Claims Act, chap. 9, tit. 6 of the Idaho Code (hereinafter "ITCA"). Sweitzer argues that the ITCA contains no language which would require notice for damage claims other than for tort claims. Sweitzer contends that had the legislature intended a more inclusive statutory scheme, it would have enacted a general claims act rather than the more restrictive ITCA which limits its scope to tortious conduct. Sweitzer argues that if the legislature had amended and revised I.C. § 50-219 to read "as prescribed by I.C. § 6-906 " (emphasis added), the outcome of his case arguably would be different. However, since the 1983 amendment to I.C. § 50-219 states "as prescribed by chapter 9, title 6 " (emphasis added), Sweitzer argues that the legislature in effect substituted the entire tort claim act for § 50-219. Sweitzer contends that the only rational conclusion is that the legislature intended claims against the City to be controlled and determined in compliance with the ITCA and since the ITCA refers only to tort claims, its requirement...