Williams v. Computer Resources, Inc.
| Decision Date | 28 April 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 19771,19771 |
| Citation | 851 P.2d 967,123 Idaho 671 |
| Parties | , 8 IER Cases 957 J.C. WILLIAMS and Carol Williams, husband and wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. COMPUTER RESOURCES, INC., an Idaho corporation; and Scott Roberts, Defendants-Respondents. Boise, February 1993 Term |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Weston & Richardson, Boise, for plaintiffs-appellants. Richard E. Weston argued.
Martelle Law Offices, Boise, for defendants-respondents. Martin J. Martelle argued.
This is an employment case. The trial court granted summary judgment dismissing the employee's breach of contract claim on the ground that the employment contract established only an at-will employment relationship. We hold that the employment contract between the parties is ambiguous and that there is a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment.
THE BACKGROUND AND PRIOR PROCEEDINGS.
J.C. Williams was working as a computer programmer in Alaska when he contacted Computer Resources, Inc. (CRI) concerning potential employment. CRI is a company that supplies computer programmers to businesses on a contract basis. In late March, 1990, Scott Roberts, CRI's marketing director, contacted Williams and discussed with Williams possible employment with CRI. Roberts arranged for Williams to interview with Boise Cascade, Corp., one of CRI's clients. In early April 1990, Roberts telephoned Williams and extended him an offer of employment to work for CRI at Boise Cascade.
Roberts mailed Williams a letter dated April 13, 1990. The letter stated that it was sent to confirm the offer of employment made over the telephone and that the letter constituted the employment agreement between the parties. The letter also set out at least some of the terms of employment and requested Williams to sign and return the letter to CRI, which Williams did on April 27, 1990.
Williams was to begin work at Boise Cascade on June 4, 1990. In May 1990, Williams and his family moved to Boise, Idaho. On May 24, 1990, Williams arrived at CRI's office for what CRI termed an "orientation meeting" and to fill out "some necessary paperwork." At this meeting CRI presented Williams a packet of information that included a "no-compete/confidentiality agreement."
Williams refused to sign CRI's "no-compete/confidentiality agreement." Williams persisted in his refusal even though Roberts offered to work with Williams to reach an acceptable agreement and to pay for at least one hour of an attorney's time, if Williams wanted to obtain advice from independent counsel. Williams has admitted that he knew from prior work with Boise Cascade that Boise Cascade required all employees to sign a confidentiality agreement. Despite this, Williams claimed he was not required to renegotiate the terms of his employment contract with CRI. When Williams continued to refuse to sign CRI's "no-compete/confidentiality agreement," CRI terminated him.
Williams sued CRI and Roberts, alleging that CRI breached its employment contract with Williams. Williams also claimed reliance damages, and punitive damages under I.C. § 6-1604.
The trial court dismissed the claim for punitive damages. CRI moved for summary judgment on all remaining issues. The trial court granted summary judgment, ruling that regardless of whether an employment contract existed between the parties, Williams was an employee at will, because the agreement did not contain a term of specific duration and because there was no evidence of an implied limitation on CRI's right to terminate Williams. The trial court concluded that because there was no breach of the employment contract, Williams could not maintain an action for reliance damages. The trial court also concluded that Williams could not maintain an action in tort against Roberts.
THERE IS A GENUINE ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT WHETHER WILLIAMS WAS AN AT-WILL EMPLOYEE.
Williams asserts that the trial court should not have granted summary judgment We note that the trial court ruled that, viewing the circumstances in the light most favorable to Williams, there was a valid and enforceable employment contract between CRI and Williams evidenced in the letter sent to Williams by CRI and signed by Williams.
[123 Idaho 673] because there is a genuine issue of material fact whether any employment contract between Williams and CRI established that Williams was employed by CRI for a specific period of time. We agree.
In finding Williams was an at-will employee, the trial court, in essence, found that the terms of the April 13, 1990 letter were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bli v. Dixson Irrevocable Trust
...make conclusive findings with regard to issues upon which the parties submitted conflicting evidence. See Williams v. Computer Res., Inc., 123 Idaho 671, 673, 851 P.2d 967, 969 (1993) (holding that the trial court was not permitted to draw inferences regarding the parties' intent when the p......
-
Dorman v. Petrol Aspen, Inc.
...reviews; provides for a "yearly" salary; and envisions "a long term commitment toward each other." See Williams v. Computer Resources, Inc., 123 Idaho 671, 851 P.2d 967, 969 (1993) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, the renegotiation clause in this case does not create an ambiguit......
-
Intermountain Gas Co. v. Industrial Indem. Co. of Idaho
...can be answered as a matter of law, and that summary judgment is therefore appropriate. Kromrei, supra; Williams v. Computer Resources, Inc., 123 Idaho 671, 851 P.2d 967 (1993). Analysis The duty to defend is not coextensive with the duty to pay damages. Standlee v. St. Paul Fire & Marine I......
-
Van Dyke v. East Shoshone Hosp. Dist.
...was not ambiguous. See United States v. Fowler, 913 F.2d 1382, 1388 (9th Cir.1990) (applying Idaho law); Williams v. Computer Resources, Inc., 851 P.2d 967, 969 (Idaho 1993). Because the contract unambiguously provided for nonrenewal upon notice and it is undisputed that notice was proper, ......