Dundas v. Winter Sports, Inc.
2017 Mont. LEXIS 668, 389 Mont. 223, 2017 MT 269 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Montana Wrongful Discharge From Employment Act (WDEA), an employer may terminate a probationary employee for any reason or no reason, and an employer's clearly stated policy defining seasonal re-hires as 'new employees for all purposes' can establish a new probationary period upon each re-hire.
Facts:
- Winter Sports, Inc. (WSI) operates Whitefish Mountain Resort, employing a large number of seasonal workers.
- Mark Dundas worked as a winter seasonal employee for WSI during each winter season from 2003 to 2014.
- For the 2014-2015 winter season, WSI hired Dundas for a new Snow Safety Coordinator position, set to run from approximately November 19, 2014, to April 12, 2015.
- Dundas was upset because he was not hired for other Ski Patrol management positions he had applied for.
- Dundas sent an email to Chester Powell, Director of Mountain Operations, criticizing the hiring process and expressing a 'very low opinion' of Powell and CEO Dan Graves.
- WSI management determined that Dundas expressed his anger to other employees in an insubordinate and inappropriate manner.
- WSI Ski Patrol Manager David Stephens counseled Dundas about his negative attitude and profane statements concerning his job and superiors.
- WSI terminated Dundas' employment on March 1, 2015, due to his inappropriate behavior.
Procedural Posture:
- Mark Dundas sued Winter Sports, Inc. (WSI) in the District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District, Flathead County, alleging wrongful discharge under the Montana Wrongful Discharge From Employment Act (WDEA).
- Dundas claimed WSI lacked good cause for termination, failed to follow personnel policies, and terminated him for refusing to violate or reporting violations of public policy.
- Winter Sports, Inc. moved for summary judgment on all of Dundas' claims.
- The District Court granted WSI's motion for summary judgment, concluding that Dundas was a probationary employee who could be terminated for any reason.
- Mark Dundas, as appellant, appealed the District Court's order granting summary judgment to the Montana Supreme Court, with Winter Sports, Inc. as appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the District Court properly grant summary judgment, dismissing Mark Dundas' claims for wrongful discharge under the Montana Wrongful Discharge From Employment Act (WDEA), by correctly determining he was a probationary employee subject to at-will termination?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Mike McGrath
Yes, the District Court properly granted summary judgment dismissing Mark Dundas' wrongful discharge claims because he was a probationary employee subject to termination for any reason or no reason. The Montana Wrongful Discharge From Employment Act (WDEA) is the exclusive remedy for wrongful discharge claims in Montana and preempts common-law remedies, protecting employees after their probationary period. The WDEA allows employers to establish specific probationary periods during which employment is at-will, meaning termination can occur for any reason or no reason. WSI's Employee Handbook defined seasonal employees as those hired for less than 12 months, with employment ending at the season's close. Critically, it stated that if rehired, seasonal employees are considered 'a new employee for all purposes,' and the probationary period is the 'first 6 months of employment.' Dundas himself acknowledged being 'rehired' each season. The Court found the Handbook's language unambiguous: each seasonal re-hire effectively started a new employment term and a new six-month probationary period. Since Dundas was re-hired for the 2014-2015 season and terminated four months later, he was still within his probationary period. Therefore, WSI could terminate his employment for any reason or no reason, making his claims of lack of good cause or failure to follow progressive discipline invalid. Furthermore, Dundas' claim that he was terminated for reporting a public policy violation failed because he did not provide any evidence of a specific constitutional provision, statute, or administrative rule that WSI violated or that he reported, which is required under the WDEA's definition of 'public policy' for such a claim.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of the Montana Wrongful Discharge From Employment Act (WDEA) to seasonal employees and highlights the significance of employer policies, particularly employee handbooks, in defining employment terms. It reinforces that employers have substantial latitude in terminating probationary employees, even those who are repeatedly re-hired seasonally, provided their policies clearly establish new probationary periods upon each re-hire. The ruling emphasizes the strict requirements for a public policy exception to at-will employment, demanding concrete evidence of a specific legal or administrative violation.
