Quick Summary
Catherine Wagenseller (plaintiff) was terminated by Scottsdale Memorial Hospital (defendant) from her nursing position, which she attributed to her non-participation in certain activities during a work-related trip, led by her supervisor, Kay Smith.
The main issue revolved around whether her termination was wrongful, and against public policy. The Supreme Court of Arizona ruled that firing for bad cause, against public policy, is not permissible, reversing the trial court’s decision on this ground while upholding it on the grounds of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
Facts of the Case
Catherine Wagenseller (plaintiff) was employed as a nurse at Scottsdale Memorial Hospital (defendant), where she worked under the supervision of Kay Smith (defendant). Their professional relationship spanned approximately four years, during which Wagenseller received positive performance reviews.
However, after a hospital-organized trip involving alleged inappropriate behavior by Smith, Wagenseller’s refusal to participate led to a souring of their relationship. Subsequently, Wagenseller began to receive poor performance reviews and was ultimately terminated.
She believed that her termination was directly linked to her non-participation in the trip activities, which she considered inappropriate and unprofessional.
This belief formed the basis of her lawsuit against the hospital and Smith for wrongful termination, asserting that her dismissal was in violation of public policy and unrelated to her job performance.
Procedural History
- Wagenseller brought suit against Scottsdale Memorial Hospital and Kay Smith for wrongful termination.
- The trial court ruled in favor of the hospital, dismissing all causes of action.
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision in part and remanded with instructions that only Wagenseller’s claim against Smith could proceed.
- Wagenseller appealed to the Supreme Court of Arizona.
I.R.A.C. Format
Issue
Whether an employer’s right to terminate an at-will employee is limited by rules which, if breached, give rise to a cause of action for wrongful termination based on public policy considerations.
Rule of Law
An employer may fire for good cause or for no cause, but not for ‘bad cause’ – actions that violate public policy. The employment contract may include implied terms derived from employer policy statements, and such terms may limit the employer’s right to discharge. An implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing exists in employment contracts but does not guarantee continued employment or tenure.
Reasoning and Analysis
The Arizona Supreme Court recognized that societal interests must be balanced with the rights and freedoms of employers and employees.
The court adopted the ‘public policy exception’ to the at-will termination rule, holding that an employer cannot terminate an employee for reasons that contravene public policy.
The court also determined that employment contracts can include terms implied from employer-issued manuals or policies, which can limit an employer’s right to discharge.
However, the court rejected the notion that the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in employment contracts guarantees tenure or continued employment. It concluded that while employees are protected from termination for reasons violating public policy, they are not protected from no-cause terminations that do not implicate public policy.
Conclusion
The Arizona Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision regarding the wrongful termination based on public policy and the implied terms from the personnel manual. It affirmed the lower court’s ruling on the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
Key Takeaways
- An employer cannot terminate an employee for reasons that breach public policy.
- Employment contracts may contain implied terms limiting the employer’s right to discharge, based on company policies or manuals.
- The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing does not prevent employers from terminating at-will employees without cause.
Relevant FAQs of this case
What constitutes a wrongful termination under public policy?
Termination contravening fundamental societal norms or statutes is regarded as wrongful under public policy.
- For example: A company firing an employee for refusing to engage in illegal activities would constitute wrongful termination.
How can implied terms in employment contracts affect at-will employment?
Implied terms from policies or manuals can restrict the employer’s discretion in terminating an at-will employee.
- For example: A worker’s handbook stating employees will only be fired for cause could create an implied term that limits at-will termination.
What is the role of good faith in employment relationships?
The implied covenant of good faith ensures fair treatment but does not prevent no-cause dismissal in at-will employment.
- For example: An employer summarily dismissing a long-standing, high-performing employee without explanation might breach this covenant, depending on jurisdiction.
References
Was this case brief helpful?
- [justia] Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Memorial Hosp.
- [google.scholar] Catherine Sue WAGENSELLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SCOTTSDALE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL; Donald A. Andrews and Jane Doe Andrews, his wife; Neal Brown and Jane Doe Brown, his wife; John W. Holmes and Jane Doe Holmes, his wife; and Kay Smith, a single person, Defendants-Appellees.