Banaitis v. Mitsubishi Bank, Ltd.
9 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1481, 879 P.2d 1288, 129 Or. App. 371 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer may be held liable for wrongful discharge when terminating an at-will employee for refusing to perform an act that violates a societal obligation or public duty, which can be derived from various constitutional, statutory, and common law principles reflecting a broad public policy. Furthermore, an employer can be liable for punitive damages for an employee's wanton misconduct if the employee was acting within the scope of their employment, even without proof of the employer's specific ratification or knowledge of the misconduct.
Facts:
- Plaintiff began working for The Bank of California, N.A. (BanCal) as a vice president in 1980.
- In 1984, Mitsubishi Bank, Ltd. (MBL) acquired 13% of BanCal's stock and later a holding company that owned the remaining stock, transferring MBL officers, including Tanaka, to manage BanCal.
- BanCal had a strict confidentiality policy regarding customer financial information, stated in its employee manual, and employees were required to certify their understanding annually, with breach leading to immediate dismissal.
- In late 1986, an MBL employee requested a comparison chart of BanCal's grain company customers from plaintiff, containing sensitive financial data; plaintiff refused, citing bank policy, law, and ethics.
- In September 1986, MBL's Portland manager made a similar request for confidential financial information about Schnitzer Steel Industries, Inc., a customer who had demanded a confidentiality agreement; plaintiff refused again.
- Starting February 1987, Tanaka wrote false performance evaluations for plaintiff, accused him of unauthorized travel, dishonesty, and questioned his integrity.
- In August 1987, BanCal placed plaintiff on 90-day probation based on these false charges.
- On December 16, 1987, during negotiations for his departure, plaintiff informed his staff he would be leaving, anticipating working until December 31 to receive full pension benefits for the year, but Tanaka and BanCal's Human Resources accelerated his departure to December 30, depriving him of those benefits.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff commenced an action on December 12, 1989, in state trial court, alleging wrongful discharge against BanCal and intentional interference with contractual relations against MBL, seeking compensatory and punitive damages.
- At the close of the evidence at trial, defendants moved for directed verdicts on both claims, which the trial court denied.
- The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff, awarding compensatory and punitive damages against both defendants.
- Defendants subsequently moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or, in the alternative, for a new trial.
- The trial court denied the motion for JNOV with respect to the compensatory damages verdict.
- The trial court granted the motion for JNOV with respect to punitive damages on both claims, concluding there was no evidence that either defendant ratified the alleged acts of its employees or that they were acting within the scope of their employment.
- The trial court denied the alternative motion for a new trial.
- Defendants appealed the judgment awarding plaintiff compensatory damages; plaintiff cross-appealed the judgment notwithstanding the verdict that deprived him of the jury award of punitive damages against both defendants.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does an employer's termination of an at-will employee for refusing to disclose confidential customer financial information fall within the 'societal obligation' or 'public duty' exception to the at-will employment rule, even without a specific statute directly prohibiting the employer's conduct? 2. Can an employer be held liable for punitive damages for an employee's wanton misconduct if the employee was acting within the scope of employment, even if the employer did not ratify or have specific knowledge of the misconduct?
Opinions:
Majority - Landau, J.
Yes, discharging an employee for refusing to disclose confidential customer financial information constitutes wrongful termination under the 'societal obligation' exception to the at-will rule. The court found that a clear public policy exists to protect confidential commercial and financial information, particularly when entrusted to a bank. This policy is evidenced by a host of state and federal statutes, including the Federal Right to Financial Privacy Act, Federal Freedom of Information Act, Oregon Public Records Act, and criminal statutes like ORS 165.095(1) and 708.715, as well as common law principles recognizing a bank’s duty of secrecy to its customers (e.g., Peterson v. Idaho First National Bank). The court rejected BanCal's argument that a specific statute directly regulating the employer's conduct was required, emphasizing that the collective "evidence" of public policy, even if not directly penalizing the bank's disclosure, indicates a substantial public interest that would be "thwarted" if such a discharge were permitted. The court also affirmed the jury's award of punitive damages against both defendants. It clarified that an employer can be held liable for punitive damages for an employee's wanton misconduct if the employee was acting within the scope of their employment, even if the employer did not ratify or have specific knowledge of the misconduct. This standard, derived from Stroud v. Denny's Restaurant, distinguishes from situations involving 'apparent authority' where employer knowledge or ratification might be required. Here, employees Tanaka and the Human Resources director were performing supervisory and disciplinary duties — functions within the scope of their employment — even if they executed those duties with improper motives or means. The court also rejected MBL’s argument that its ownership of BanCal shielded it from liability for interfering with plaintiff's contract, stating that mere stock ownership does not automatically establish control. Furthermore, the court upheld the trial court's rulings on the statute of limitations for the interference claim, finding that emotional distress alone does not constitute an 'injury to contractual relations' sufficient to trigger the limitation period, and affirmed the jury instructions regarding wrongful discharge and the privilege to interfere.
Analysis:
This case significantly expands the 'societal obligation' exception to at-will employment, allowing courts to infer public policy from a broader range of legal sources (constitutional, statutory, common law) rather than requiring a direct, specific prohibition on the employer's conduct. It solidifies protection for employees who refuse to act contrary to established public interests, even when those interests are not codified in a single, directly applicable statute. Additionally, the ruling clarifies the standard for corporate liability for punitive damages, making it easier for plaintiffs to recover against employers for employee misconduct, provided the employee was acting within the general scope of their duties, regardless of the employer's explicit approval or awareness of the specific wrongful act.
