Benson v. AJR, INC.
599 S.E.2d 747, 215 W. Va. 324 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When an employment contract permits termination without severance for "dishonesty," and an employee is dismissed after failing a drug test, a genuine issue of material fact exists for a jury to determine whether the actual basis for termination was the drug use itself or a separate act of dishonesty. Additionally, a false light invasion of privacy claim requires widespread publicity, which is not met by disclosure to a small group of individuals with a legitimate business interest.
Facts:
- Danny L. Benson was employed by AJR, Inc., a heavy manufacturing business, and on May 1, 1997, was promoted to supervisor with primary responsibility for safety.
- When John M. Rhodes purchased AJR, he entered into an eight-year employment agreement with Benson on August 29, 1997.
- The agreement guaranteed Benson his salary for the full term even if terminated, unless the termination was for one of three reasons: (a) dishonesty, (b) conviction of a felony, or (c) voluntary termination.
- In September 1997, Benson received an employee manual prohibiting drug use and signed a consent form for random controlled substance testing.
- On March 2, 1998, AJR administered a drug test to its employees, including Benson.
- Between the test and the release of the results, Rhodes held a meeting and asked employees if they were aware of any drug use at the company; Benson, knowing he had recently used cocaine and would likely test positive, did not respond.
- Benson’s test results came back positive for cocaine at a level more than three times the limit used by the Department of Transportation.
- On March 6, 1998, AJR terminated Benson. One of the termination forms prepared by AJR listed the reason for termination as "controlled substance testing" and "tested positive for cocaine."
Procedural Posture:
- Danny L. Benson filed a complaint against AJR, Inc. and John M. Rhodes in the Circuit Court of Wood County, a state trial court, alleging breach of contract and false light invasion of privacy.
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Appellees, AJR and Rhodes, on both claims.
- Benson, as the Appellant, appealed the trial court's order granting summary judgment to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employer's termination of an employee for testing positive for a controlled substance automatically constitute termination for "dishonesty" under an employment contract, thereby relieving the employer of its salary continuation obligation, when the termination documents cite only the drug test results as the reason for dismissal?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. Terminating an employee for drug use does not automatically equate to termination for "dishonesty" under an employment contract, and a jury must determine the employer's actual reason for the dismissal. The term "dishonesty" is not a term of art with a universal definition; its meaning depends on the context of the contract. While Benson admitted to being dishonest when he failed to answer Rhodes's question about employee drug use, the critical factual issue is the reason upon which AJR actually relied for the termination. AJR's own termination documents cited the positive drug test, not dishonesty, as the reason for dismissal. The court is unwilling to broadly define drug use as dishonesty as a matter of law, so the question of whether Benson was fired for drug use (which would trigger the salary payment) or for dishonesty (which would not) must be resolved by a jury. The court affirmed the dismissal of the invasion of privacy claim because disclosure of the drug test results to three individuals within the company does not constitute the "widespread publicity" required for such a tort.
Dissenting - Maynard, C.J.
Yes. The employee's actions, taken as a whole, constituted dishonest behavior, making the distinction between termination for drug use and termination for dishonesty meaningless under these facts. The majority engages in "legalistic hairsplitting." Benson was the company's safety director, worked in a dangerous environment, knowingly violated the company's drug policy by coming to work with cocaine in his system, and was dishonest by omission when questioned by management. This conduct is inherently dishonest, and it is irrelevant whether the termination form specified "drug use" or "dishonesty." The undisputed facts demonstrate dishonesty, and the grant of summary judgment for the employer should have been affirmed.
Concurring - Starcher, J.
No. The employer's motivation for the termination is a question of fact for the jury because the employer's stated reasons are inconsistent. This case is about enforcing the plain language of a contract. The contract created a loophole for the employer to avoid paying severance if the termination was for "dishonesty." However, the documentation created at the time of the firing explicitly stated the reason was for testing positive for cocaine. The employer's later claim that the firing was for dishonesty appears to be a post-hoc justification to avoid its contractual obligation. These competing positions create a classic factual dispute that a jury, not a judge, must resolve.
Analysis:
This decision emphasizes the critical importance of precise drafting in employment contracts and consistency in termination procedures. It establishes that a general term like "dishonesty" in a for-cause termination clause will not automatically be interpreted to include other forms of misconduct, such as drug use. The ruling serves as a caution to employers that the reason for termination stated in official documentation carries significant weight and that subsequent re-characterizations to fit a contractual exception may not succeed on summary judgment. This precedent strengthens the role of the jury in interpreting ambiguous contractual terms and assessing an employer's true motivation in termination disputes.
Unlock the full brief for Benson v. AJR, INC.