Wior v. Anchor Industries, Inc.
11 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1742, 1996 Ind. LEXIS 114, 669 N.E.2d 172 (1996)
Rule of Law:
An oral agreement for employment until retirement, defined as a specific term of years exceeding one year, is unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds; furthermore, giving up a business with limited prospects to relocate for employment does not constitute adequate independent consideration to convert at-will employment into employment requiring good cause for termination.
Facts:
- Glenn Wior operated a sewing sole proprietorship in Indianapolis that generated low income and limited profits.
- Anchor Industries advertised a supervisor position in Evansville, and Wior interviewed for the job.
- During negotiations, Wior stated he would not relocate unless he had a commitment for employment until retirement, specifically discussed as "20 plus" years.
- Anchor orally agreed to employ Wior for "20 plus" years until retirement, but no written contract was signed.
- Wior closed his sewing business, sold his home, and moved his family to Evansville to begin work.
- An Anchor executive allegedly instructed Wior to fire a subordinate employee specifically because she had filed a worker's compensation claim for carpal tunnel syndrome.
- Wior refused to fire the subordinate, arguing it was improper to terminate someone for exercising statutory rights.
- Anchor terminated Wior's employment after approximately three months, claiming he did not "fit in."
Procedural Posture:
- Wior filed a complaint against Anchor in the trial court for breach of contract and wrongful discharge.
- Anchor filed a motion for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Anchor on all claims.
- Wior appealed to the Indiana Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed in part but reversed the summary judgment regarding the Statute of Frauds, ruling the oral contract could be enforceable.
- Anchor petitioned the Supreme Court of Indiana for transfer.
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) Is an oral employment agreement for a term of "20 plus" years unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds because it cannot be performed within one year? 2) Does an employee provide adequate independent consideration to rebut the at-will employment presumption by closing a struggling business and relocating? 3) Does Indiana recognize a wrongful discharge claim when a supervisor is fired for refusing to terminate a subordinate who filed a worker's compensation claim?
Opinions:
Majority - Selby
1) Yes, the agreement is unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds. The court reasoned that while a contract for "lifetime" employment might be performed within one year (if the employee dies), a contract for a specific term of "20 plus" years cannot be performed within a year. Death would merely excuse performance, not fulfill the contract's terms. Since the agreement was not in writing, it is unenforceable. 2) No, Wior did not provide adequate independent consideration. To convert at-will employment to permanent employment, an employee must provide consideration beyond standard services. Wior merely gave up a business with low profits and relocated, which is standard for accepting a new job. This did not meet the high threshold established in prior cases like Romack, where an employee abandoned a tenure-track career. 3) No, the wrongful discharge exception does not apply. The court declined to extend the Frampton exception (which protects employees fired for filing worker's compensation claims) to supervisors fired for refusing to terminate those employees. The court held that the injured employee's own right to sue provides sufficient public policy protection.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Sullivan
Yes, a wrongful discharge claim should be recognized in this context. While agreeing with the majority on the contract issues, Justice Sullivan argued that the same public policy prohibiting an employer from firing a worker for filing a claim should prohibit firing a supervisor who refuses to execute that illegal discharge. He asserted that Wior should be entitled to a trial on this specific claim.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the strength of the employment-at-will doctrine in Indiana and strictly interprets the Statute of Frauds. By distinguishing between "lifetime" employment (where death = performance) and employment for a specific duration like "20 years" (where death = excuse), the court closed a loophole that allowed long-term oral contracts to survive the Statute of Frauds. Additionally, the court set a high bar for "independent consideration," clarifying that merely relocating or giving up a mediocre job is not enough to secure permanent employment rights. Finally, the refusal to extend the Frampton exception suggests a judicial hesitancy to create new common law torts for wrongful discharge, preferring to limit protections to the direct victims of statutory rights violations.
