Monge v. Beebe Rubber Co.
62 A.L.R. 3d 264, 316 A.2d 549, 114 N.H. 130 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A termination of an at-will employment contract motivated by bad faith, malice, or retaliation constitutes a breach of the contract because such a termination is not in the best interest of the economic system or the public good.
Facts:
- In September 1968, Monge was hired to work in Beebe Rubber Co.'s factory.
- After about three months, Monge applied for a better-paying position, and her foreman told her she would have to be 'nice' to get it.
- After she got the job, the foreman asked Monge to go out with him, which she refused because she was married.
- Following her refusal, Monge's machine was shut down, her overtime was eliminated, she was moved to a lower-paying job, and the foreman assigned her menial tasks like cleaning the washrooms.
- The personnel manager told Monge he knew her foreman used his position to pressure female employees and asked her 'not to make trouble.'
- On July 23, 1969, the foreman fired Monge during an argument, though she was later reinstated after the union intervened.
- After being absent due to a documented illness, Monge received a letter dated August 13, 1969, stating she was 'deemed a voluntary quit' for failing to report to work for three consecutive days, despite evidence that she had called in sick.
Procedural Posture:
- Monge filed a lawsuit in a New Hampshire trial court against Beebe Rubber Co. for breach of an oral employment contract.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of Monge for $2,500.
- Beebe Rubber Co. filed a motion to set aside the verdict and a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), both of which the trial court denied.
- Beebe Rubber Co. (appellant) appealed the trial court's rulings to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire, where Monge was the 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:
Does the termination of an at-will employment contract constitute a breach of that contract when the employer's motivation for the termination is based on bad faith, malice, or retaliation?
Opinions:
Majority - Lampron, J.
Yes. A termination by the employer of a contract of employment at will which is motivated by bad faith or malice or based on retaliation is not in the best interest of the economic system or the public good and constitutes a breach of the employment contract. The court reasoned that the common law doctrine of employment-at-will must evolve to reflect modern social and economic conditions. This requires balancing the employer's interest in running its business against the employee's interest in maintaining employment and the public's interest in a proper balance. The jury had sufficient evidence—including the foreman's advances, the manipulation of job assignments, and the personnel manager's complicity—to conclude that Monge's dismissal was maliciously motivated. However, the court found that damages for mental suffering were not recoverable in this contract action and remanded the case for a new trial unless Monge agreed to a reduction of the verdict.
Dissenting - Grimes, J.
No. The traditional employment-at-will doctrine should permit termination for any reason, and the facts of this case do not support a finding of malicious termination. The dissent argued that no reasonable person could find that Monge's termination was caused by her refusal of a single advance from her foreman eight months earlier. It asserted that there were legitimate business reasons for the changes in her job assignments and that the company had shown her kindness on other occasions. Furthermore, the dissent contended that the majority's new rule is an unprecedented and unsupported departure from the universally accepted doctrine that at-will employment can be terminated for 'good cause, bad cause or no cause'.
Analysis:
This is a landmark case that created a significant exception to the traditional American legal doctrine of employment-at-will. By recognizing a cause of action for wrongful discharge based on bad faith or malice, the court introduced a public policy limitation on an employer's otherwise absolute right to terminate an at-will employee. This decision paved the way for the development of wrongful termination law across the United States, shifting the balance of power in the employer-employee relationship and giving employees recourse against arbitrary or malicious dismissals that violate public policy.
