Tremlett v. Aurora Health Care
| Decision Date | 02 July 2002 |
| Docket Number | 01-2615 |
| Citation | 650 N.W.2d 559,257 Wis. 2d 621 |
| Parties | Lori L. Tremlett, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Aurora Health Care, Inc. and Claudette Hamm, Defendants-Respondents. AppealSTATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT I DATED AND FILED |
| Court | Wisconsin Court of Appeals |
APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Milwaukee County: MAXINE A. WHITE, Judge. Affirmed. Cir. Ct. No. 00 CV 2192
Before Wedemeyer, P.J., Fine and Curley, JJ.
1. PER CURIAM.
Lori L. Tremlett appeals from a judgment entered after the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Aurora Health Care, Inc. and Claudette Hamm, dismissing her claims for breach of contract, bad faith, promissory estoppel, and intentional interference with her employment and prospective career opportunities. Tremlett claims the trial court erred when it rejected her assertions that: (1) Aurora's employee handbook and employment policies constituted a legally enforceable employment contract; (2) Aurora made an enforceable promise to her, which she reasonably relied upon to her detriment; (3)Aurora breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (4)Hamm improperly interfered with her employment relationship, and Aurora ratified such action; and (5) she was constructively discharged. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
2. In 1979, Tremlett began working at the Mount Sinai Medical Center as a staff nurse in the labor and delivery unit. Aurora manages Mount Sinai. After working for nineteen years at Mount Sinai, Tremlett became patient care manager of the Birth Center at Sinai Samaritan Medical Center. In July 1997, Claudette Hamm became Director of Women's Health for Aurora's Metro Region and consequently, Tremlett's supervisor. During this time, Aurora began to reorganize and consolidate its hospital services and facilities. Hamm frequently met with her subordinate managers, including Tremlett, to discuss administrative matters. At Hamm's initial meeting with Tremlett, she asked Tremlett to comment about combining management of the Birth Center with the Women's Care Center, which would require a combined managerial position. Tremlett remarked that the prospect would be good for the community, but the job would be "rather large" and that she could not handle it alone; she would need a coordinator to assist with the day-to-day operations. Hamm later told Tremlett that no coordinator would be assigned to the person picked to fulfill the combined managerial position.
3. At a staff meeting held in late 1997, Hamm stated that she did not anticipate that the new combined managerial position would be filled by anyone other than Tremlett or Ms. Jackie Hipke, the current manager of the Women's Care Center. The next occasion that Hamm and Tremlett discussed the new position of combined manager was during Tremlett's performance review in February 1998. Out of ten categories used for evaluation purposes, Tremlett received a "meets expectations" rating in nine and an "exceeds expectation" rating in one. During this review, Tremlett received what Hamm characterized as "an average evaluation." Hamm advised Tremlett that she should stop making department decisions by herself; instead, she needed to develop the staff to make appropriate decisions themselves, i.e., employ the "shared governance" philosophy. Hamm also told her that the combined managerial position would be posted and would not be filled until all applicants had been interviewed. Tremlett indicated to Hamm that she was also interested in a position in the ambulatory services department and, in fact, had applied for the position.
4. In February or March 1998, as a result of patient complaints, Hamm told Tremlett that she might have to fill the combined managerial position with someone outside of the two departments. Tremlett, in turn, responded by claiming she could do what was needed. Hamm then told Tremlett if that was the case, she should continue in her efforts to obtain the newly planned position. The posting for the new position, however, was delayed due to existing, unsolved administrative matters. In the meantime, Tremlett felt "in limbo" and "uncertain" about whether she would receive the new manager's position.
5. On October 2, 1998, the combined managerial position was posted. As posted, in generic form, it described the position as "Patient Care Manager, Birth Center" and set forth in incomplete fashion the expanded duties of the position. Tremlett applied for the job. On November 16, 1998, she was separately interviewed by Diane Ekstrand, a recruiter for Aurora, and Hamm. Before the interview, Hamm had reservations about Tremlett's qualifications for the new position, but decided to take a "fresh look" at Tremlett and allow her to demonstrate she was the right person for the new position.
6. The results of both interviews were similar. Both Ekstrand and Hamm concluded that Tremlett's management style was inconsistent with the shared governance style that was expected at Aurora. Hamm determined that Tremlett had not successfully implemented the shared governance model and continued to make most decisions on her own. In both interviews, Tremlett indicated that it was difficult to get her staff to the necessary level of independent decision-making and attributed this problem to the fact that most of the staff were women. Both Hamm and Ekstrand determined that Tremlett's performance in the interviews and her management plans were unsuited for the new position. On November 24, 1998, Hamm informed Tremlett that she would not be named to the new position.
7. In December 1998, Hamm refined the position description. It was denominated "Women's Health Care Manager" and set forth a complete list of specific duties, including the complete listing of the job responsibilities and requiring, rather than preferring, a master's degree. The position was posted on January 29, 1999. After interviews, the position was offered to an outside applicant, Margo Hall, on March 11, 1999.
8. After Tremlett learned that she would not be offered the new combined managerial position, she worked with Ekstrand to secure another position within the Aurora system. She was scheduled to interview for the position of Patient Care Manager at Aurora's OB/GYN clinic, an ambulatory position, but withdrew her application to accept a position outside of the Aurora system before the interview took place.
9. Approximately one year after leaving Aurora for the new position, Tremlett filed a summons and complaint alleging claims based on breach of contract, promissory estoppel, intentional interference with employment relationship, and constructive discharge. Both sides filed motions seeking summary judgment. The trial court granted the summary judgment motion in favor of Aurora and Hamm. The bases for the trial court's summary judgment were: (1) the employee handbook used by Aurora did not create an employment contract between Tremlett and Aurora; (2) any promises made in the employee handbook are simply applications of Aurora's personnel policies; (3)any intentional interference with contract claim fails because no contract existed between Tremlett and Aurora; and (4) Tremlett's constructive discharge claim fails because she was an at-will employee and did not qualify for any public policy exception to the at-will doctrine. Tremlett appeals from the trial court's decision.
II.ANALYSIS
10. In reviewing motions for summary judgment, we apply the standards set forth in Wis. Stat. 802.08(2) (1999-2000),1 in the same manner as the trial court, although we often benefit from its analysis. Green Spring Farmsv. Kersten, 136 Wis. 2d 304, 315, 401 N.W.2d 816 (1987). Summary judgment is properly granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact and only a question of law is at issue. Id. Here, the historical facts are not in dispute. The pivotal issue on appeal is whether the various documents rise to the level of a contract. Whether facts fulfill a particular legal standard is a question of law, which we review independently. Bantz v. Montgomery Estates, Inc., 163 Wis. 2d 973, 978, 473 N.W.2d 506 (Ct. App. 1991).
A.Existence of a Contract.
11. Tremlett contends that she has an enforceable contract claim entitling her to a promotion for the newly created position of combined manager of Patient Care Center/Women's Health. The basis for this contention is three-fold: (1)the Aurora handbook, employment policies and procedures, when viewed together, constitute a contract; (2) the facts create an implied-in-fact employment contract; and (3) by the terms of the Aurora handbook and its policies, she was promised a particular kind of retention and promotional process, opportunity, and outcome in connection with the reorganization of the women's health services by Hamm. We shall examine each basis in turn.
12. Tremlett, citing Ferraro v. Koelsch, 124 Wis. 2d 154, 368 N.W.2d 666 (1985), first asserts that Aurora's handbook, and the employment policies and procedures contained in the administrative manual, abrogate her at-will status, thereby creating an enforceable contractual relationship. For several reasons, this argument fails.
13. Ferraro does not control this appeal, as it is distinguishable from Tremlett's case in five ways. First, in the second paragraph of the introductory language of the very first page of the Aurora employee handbook, it is expressly stated that the The Ferraro handbook contained no such disclaimer. Id. at 159-60. Second, the handbook at issue here indicates that Aurora retains the unilateral right to formulate policy and procedure changes. No such right was retained in Ferraro. Id. Third, no express provisions exist in Aurora's handbook or manual requiring compliance with the provisions of these documents as a condition of continued employment. In contrast, Ferraro explicitly agreed that compliance with the handbook was a "condition of my continued...
To continue reading
Request your trial