Weatherwax v. Hiland Potato Chip Co. of Sioux Falls, No. 14656
| Court | Supreme Court of South Dakota |
| Writing for the Court | HENDERSON; FOSHEIM, C.J., and MORGAN; WOLLMAN, J., and WUEST; WUEST; I am authorized to state that WOLLMAN |
| Citation | 372 N.W.2d 118 |
| Parties | 120 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2225 Douglas WEATHERWAX, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. HILAND POTATO CHIP COMPANY OF SIOUX FALLS, Defendant and Appellee. . Considered on Briefs |
| Decision Date | 07 January 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 14656 |
Page 118
v.
HILAND POTATO CHIP COMPANY OF SIOUX FALLS, Defendant and
Appellee.
Decided July 31, 1985.
Robert J. Burns, Sioux Falls, for plaintiff and appellant.
Steven M. Johnson of Brady, Kabeiseman, Reade & Johnson, Yankton, for defendant and appellee.
HENDERSON, Justice.
This is a civil appeal filed by Douglas Weatherwax (Weatherwax), from an order granting Hiland Potato Chip Co. (Hiland) summary judgment on a complaint filed by Weatherwax for damages arising out of his employment with Hiland. We affirm.
Weatherwax was employed as a route salesman by Hiland from January 1, 1982, until July 5, 1983. Weatherwax's responsibilities included the sale, delivery, and stocking of Hiland products in various businesses on a designated route. Hiland had a strict set of rules for route salesmen concerning stale products and their return to Hiland.
On July 5, 1983, Weatherwax was fired for violating the rules and regulations concerning stale products in that he habitually failed to pick up stale potato chips and rotate fresh merchandise. After his termination, Weatherwax filed for, and was awarded, unemployment benefits. On August 5, 1983, Weatherwax, while his unemployment compensation administrative procedure was pending, filed suit against Hiland for wrongful discharge, to include punitive damages. Weatherwax's theory of damages is predicated upon Hiland terminating his employment without following the disciplinary procedures set forth in Hiland's handbook for employees. * Hiland appealed the South Dakota Department of Labor-Unemployment Insurance Division's initial award of unemployment benefits and after a full hearing on August 24, 1983, before an impartial hearing examiner from that Department, Hiland won a reversal of the award of benefits. The hearing examiner specifically found that Weatherwax had violated the rules concerning stale products, had sufficient notice of their violation, and that Weatherwax's continued disregard for these stalage rules constituted work-connected misconduct. See Matter of Yaroch, 333 N.W.2d 448 (S.D.1983). Weatherwax appealed to the Secretary of Labor who adopted the appeals referee's decision. Weatherwax, thereafter, failed to appeal this latter decision to the circuit court and continued to press his lawsuit for wrongful discharge.
Subsequent to discovery procedures in the lawsuit, Hiland filed a Motion for Summary Judgment based on five separate grounds. After a hearing and review of the briefs submitted, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Hiland. Although there were five separate grounds listed in the motion, none of which pertain to exhaustion of administrative remedies, the trial court did not detail its reasons for
Page 120
granting the summary judgment nor enter formal findings of fact and conclusions of law. See SDCL 15-6-52(a). It is from this order that Weatherwax now appeals.Both parties, by their briefs, present one legal issue to be decided on appeal: Is a claimant who did not exhaust all remedies for unemployment compensation precluded from bringing an action against the same employer in circuit court for wrongful discharge from employment? We answer this issue in the affirmative and thereby affirm the circuit court. We bottom our decision on Weatherwax's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies, which is the singular issue as posed by the briefs. As detailed below, precedent supports the circuit court's decision. It is unusual that the singular...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Musch v. H-D Elec. Co-op., Inc., H-D
...any basis which supports the ruling of the trial court, affirmance of a summary judgment is proper. Weatherwax v. Hiland Potato Chip Co., 372 N.W.2d 118, 120 (S.D.1985); Ruple v. Weinaug, 328 N.W.2d 857, 859-60 Pickering v. Pickering, 434 N.W.2d 758, 760-61 (S.D.1989). First, we must determ......
-
Gasper v. Freidel, No. 16540
...any basis which supports the ruling of the trial court, affirmance of a summary judgment is proper. Weatherwax v. Hiland Potato Chip Co., 372 N.W.2d 118, Page 229 120 (S.D.1985); Ruple v. Weinaug, 328 N.W.2d 857, 859-60 (S.D.1983). Pickering v. Pickering, 434 N.W.2d 758, 760-61 (S.D.1989). ......
-
Johnson v. Kolman, a Div. of Athey Products Corp., No. 15388
...608. This court applied the exhaustion doctrine in a recent case which is almost directly on point, Weatherwax v. Hiland Potato Chip Co., 372 N.W.2d 118 (S.D.1985). In that case, Weatherwax filed for unemployment insurance benefits, but the Department of Labor denied his claim. Rather than ......
-
Pickering v. Pickering, Nos. 16145
...any basis which supports the ruling of the trial court, affirmance of a summary judgment is proper. Weatherwax v. Hiland Potato Chip Co., 372 N.W.2d 118, 120 (S.D.1985); Ruple Page 761 v. Weinaug, 328 N.W.2d 857, 859-60 (S.D.1983). We first address the trial court's granting summary judgmen......
-
Musch v. H-D Elec. Co-op., Inc., H-D
...any basis which supports the ruling of the trial court, affirmance of a summary judgment is proper. Weatherwax v. Hiland Potato Chip Co., 372 N.W.2d 118, 120 (S.D.1985); Ruple v. Weinaug, 328 N.W.2d 857, 859-60 Pickering v. Pickering, 434 N.W.2d 758, 760-61 (S.D.1989). First, we must determ......
-
Gasper v. Freidel, No. 16540
...any basis which supports the ruling of the trial court, affirmance of a summary judgment is proper. Weatherwax v. Hiland Potato Chip Co., 372 N.W.2d 118, Page 229 120 (S.D.1985); Ruple v. Weinaug, 328 N.W.2d 857, 859-60 (S.D.1983). Pickering v. Pickering, 434 N.W.2d 758, 760-61 (S.D.1989). ......
-
Johnson v. Kolman, a Div. of Athey Products Corp., No. 15388
...608. This court applied the exhaustion doctrine in a recent case which is almost directly on point, Weatherwax v. Hiland Potato Chip Co., 372 N.W.2d 118 (S.D.1985). In that case, Weatherwax filed for unemployment insurance benefits, but the Department of Labor denied his claim. Rather than ......
-
Pickering v. Pickering, Nos. 16145
...any basis which supports the ruling of the trial court, affirmance of a summary judgment is proper. Weatherwax v. Hiland Potato Chip Co., 372 N.W.2d 118, 120 (S.D.1985); Ruple Page 761 v. Weinaug, 328 N.W.2d 857, 859-60 (S.D.1983). We first address the trial court's granting summary judgmen......