The Idaho Supreme Court recently strengthened the employment at-will doctrine by refusing to apply one of its foremost exceptions: wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. In doing so, the Court implicitly explained how difficult it is for a disgruntled employee to prove the requirements of the exception, and also cautioned employees to think carefully before pursuing claims that are frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.
A Brief Term of Employment
In March 2011, Tina Venable, who had 15 years of experience in the car sales industry, was hired by Internet Auto Rent & Sales, Inc., a car dealership located in Boise, Idaho. Soon after commencing her employment, Venable claimed that she observed Internet Auto engaging in deceptive acts and practices in how the dealership sold cars to its customers. According to Venable, such acts and practices violated the Idaho Consumer Protection Act (ICPA). When Venable reported her observations to Internet Auto’s management, she allegedly was told that she should mind her own business and that this is how “we do business.” Venable also claimed that shortly after the reporting of her observations to management, her access to key computer programs used by Internet Auto was denied. Lack of access to these computer programs apparently made it difficult for Venable to complete sales transactions. Approximately a month after her hire, Internet Auto let Venable go.
Following her involuntary departure, Venable sued Internet Auto for breach of contract, wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. And she later amended her complaint to allege a claim for slander. The district court dismissed all of Venable’s claims on summary judgment, except for her slander and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims. At trial, the jury found in favor of Internet Auto on all of Venable’s claims. Notably, Venable appealed to the Idaho Supreme Court only her wrongful discharge claim, which was dismissed on summary judgment by the district court. Siding with Internet Auto, the Idaho Supreme Court found that the trial court had appropriately dismissed Venable’s wrongful discharge claim. Furthermore, the court awarded the employer attorney fees for Venable’s unmeritorious appeal.
Idaho is Undoubtedly an Employment At-Will State
As a refresher, the Idaho Supreme Court acknowledged that Idaho is an employment at-will state, which means that, absent a contract that either specifies the duration of employment or limits the reasons for termination, the employment may be terminated by either the employer or the employee at anytime, with or without notice, for any reason (or no reason) not expressly prohibited by law. In addition, there is a narrow exception to Idaho’s employment at-will doctrine where an employer’s motivation for discharging an employee is against public policy.
The Court’s Analysis of Venable’s Wrongful Discharge Claim
An employee can establish a claim for wrongful discharge by showing that he or she was terminated for engaging in an activity protected by public policy, and the employee acted in a manner that sufficiently promoted that public policy. In the Venable case, the Idaho Supreme Court first discussed that the ICPA does, in fact, establish a public policy for the State of Idaho. That public policy is to “protect both consumers and business against unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce, and to provide efficient and economical procedures to secure such protection.” Notably, however, the Court indicated that litigants must “do more than simply [point] to a broad-ranging act, without specifying a specific provision” that was violated.
On appeal, Venable argued that the district court should not have dismissed her wrongful discharge claim because she had sufficiently identified the applicable law and relevant facts to show that she was engaged in an activity protected by the ICPA. Further, Venable argued that Internet Auto had let her go because she “refused to break the law,” and cited to a prefatory portion of Idaho Code § 48-603 in support. The beginning of that statute states that “the following unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared to be unlawful.”
The Court did not find Venable’s arguments persuasive. First, the Court noted that, beyond the prefatory comment, Idaho Code § 48-603 lists 19 sections that identify numerous unfair methods and practices that are unlawful, and, therefore, in violation of the ICPA. The Court also noted that the Idaho Attorney General has issued extensive regulations that “flesh out” the 19 sections of Idaho Code § 48-603. Here, the Court found that Venable had failed to identify a specific section of the ICPA that Internet Auto had violated. Rather, she unsatisfactorily cited to the ICPA in a general sense. In other words, the Court found that Venable had “left it to the district court” to determine which specific provisions of the ICPA had been violated, when it was Venable who was required to specify the violations.
Assuming Venable had properly tied Internet Auto’s alleged conduct to a specific provision of the ICPA that was violated, the Court next discussed the public policy exception’s requirement that an employee demonstrate that his or her own conduct was in furtherance of the public policy. In this case, Venable had repeatedly, and unsuccessfully, made the general argument that she was terminated by Internet Auto “for refusing to commit unlawful acts and practices within the context of her employment.” In an attempt to support her argument, Venable pointed to her own affidavit and testimony, and also to the affidavits and testimony of former employees of Internet Auto.
In response, the Court found that Venable’s evidence revealed no specific facts regarding her conduct, but simply reiterated Venable’s general allegations that Internet Auto engaged in deceptive acts and practices. The Court also found that Venable’s evidence did not demonstrate that her own conduct was in furtherance of Idaho’s public policy as set forth in the specific provisions of the ICPA – i.e., a showing of a specific instance of her own refusal to engage in an act that was unlawful. In sum, the Court found that Venable was simply unable to identify or establish any facts showing that Internet Auto engaged in conduct that violated the ICPA, and that she had refused to engage in an act that was unlawful.
Be Forewarned
On appeal, Internet Auto sought reimbursement for the attorney fees it spent for being forced to defend against Venable’s wrongful discharge claim, which had been addressed on numerous occasions by the district court and dismissed for lack of proof. Specifically, Internet Auto requested attorney fees under a statute that authorizes Idaho courts to award attorney fees to a prevailing party for having to defend against a claim that was pursued frivolously, unreasonably, or without foundation.
Internet Auto’s request for attorney fees was granted by the Court because Venable had failed – from the time her complaint was filed through her appeal – to produce sufficient evidence showing that Internet Auto engaged in acts that violated the ICPA or that she engaged in an activity that was protected by ICPA’s public policy. In particular, the Court seemed disturbed that Venable continued to assert the exact same arguments and evidence on appeal, even though the district court had stated – on several occasions – that they were insufficient.
Concluding Observations
On a number of fronts, this case is a win for Idaho employers. First, it solidifies Idaho’s employment at-will doctrine. Second, it demonstrates how difficult it is for disgruntled employees to side-step the at-will doctrine by asserting a cause of action for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. Employees cannot simply point to a large body of law and make conclusory allegations of wrongdoing. Rather, employees must identify a specific statute or regulation that was violated and have sufficient evidence demonstrating that the employer actually violated that statute or regulation. Finally, employees should think carefully before continuing to pursuing claims on appeal that a lower court found, on numerous occasions, were legally and factually insufficient.
