Zeilinger v. SOHIO Alaska Petroleum Co.
1992 Alas. LEXIS 2, 1992 WL 593, 823 P.2d 653 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A release agreement signed by an employee can only be rescinded on the grounds of economic duress if the employer's coercive acts caused the economic circumstances, rather than the employee's pre-existing financial hardship, to induce the agreement.
Facts:
- Sandra Zeilinger was employed by SOHIO Alaska Petroleum Company (SAPC) in a non-exempt clerical position from March 6, 1978, to September 30, 1985, working a one-week on/one-week off schedule on the North Slope.
- On August 29, 1985, SAPC notified Zeilinger that a reduction in force (RIF) necessitated her termination as of September 30, 1985, and offered her an "Involuntary Separation Program" with benefits worth approximately $10,000 in exchange for signing a separation agreement releasing SAPC from legal liability.
- Zeilinger, surprised by the RIF, met with SAPC management and was denied additional time to consider the agreement or make alterations, and was told by a manager that whether it was a real RIF or her position was eliminated was "a question for the judge or jury."
- Zeilinger's counsel advised her that signing the agreement would waive her rights but that her economic situation or SAPC inviting other employees to apply for her position might provide grounds to challenge it later.
- On September 16, 1985, Zeilinger signed the separation agreement and accepted the benefits, writing "partial payment accepted under protest" on the check, feeling she had no choice due to pre-existing financial obligations exceeding income by $2,000/month and family medical problems requiring insurance.
- SAPC stated they selected Zeilinger for termination because her performance ratings were considered "marginal or poor," but conceded that absent a bona fide RIF, performance alone would not be cause for her termination.
- Although SAPC undertook a RIF and the number of non-exempt employees on the North Slope initially decreased, a jury could reasonably conclude that SAPC management was aware at the time of Zeilinger's termination that an integration of employees from a sister corporation would lead to an increase in staff and new job functions.
Procedural Posture:
- Three months after her termination, Sandra Zeilinger filed suit against SOHIO Alaska Petroleum Company (SAPC) to rescind the separation agreement and recover damages for wrongful discharge in superior court (the trial court).
- Over the next four years, the superior court granted various motions for partial summary judgment in favor of SAPC.
- The remaining issues proceeded to a jury trial in October 1989.
- At the conclusion of Zeilinger's (plaintiff's) case, the superior court directed a verdict in favor of SAPC.
- Zeilinger (appellant) appealed the superior court's grants of summary judgment and directed verdict.
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 employee's pre-existing financial distress, even when compounded by job termination and coupled with a challenge to the legitimacy of the termination, constitute sufficient "coercive acts" by the employer to establish economic duress and rescind a separation agreement that includes a release of claims?
Opinions:
Majority - Burke, Justice
No, an employee's pre-existing financial distress, even when compounded by job termination, does not, by itself, constitute sufficient "coercive acts" by the employer to establish economic duress and rescind a separation agreement. The court affirmed the superior court's summary judgment on misrepresentation, finding that Zeilinger's explicit and continuing insistence that she signed due to economic distress, coupled with her actions (protesting the check, immediate lawsuit), negated any claim of reliance on SAPC's RIF representations. The court rejected Zeilinger's argument that a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the employment agreement should set aside the separation agreement, deeming it circular and without logical connection to rescinding the release unless misrepresentation was involved, which had already failed. Regarding economic duress, the court applied the three-part test from Totem Marine Tug & Barge, Inc. v. Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co., requiring (1) involuntary acceptance, (2) no reasonable alternative, and (3) circumstances resulting from coercive acts of the other party. The court agreed that Zeilinger showed involuntary acceptance and that a directed verdict was inappropriate on the "no reasonable alternative" prong, as a legal remedy might not be adequate if delay caused immediate irreparable loss. However, the court found no "coercive act" on the part of SAPC. The court distinguished between "coercive acts" and the employee's pre-existing financial circumstances, stating that while the coercive acts prong is liberally construed, there was no evidence SAPC's actions (her termination) were intended to coerce her into signing the release. The court concluded that Zeilinger's burdensome financial circumstances, which were of her own making, rather than SAPC's conduct, induced her to sign, and economic necessity alone is insufficient to void a valid release. The court reversed and remanded the attorney's fees award, finding the claimed fees excessive and requiring the superior court to scrutinize them for reasonableness.
Dissenting - Rabinowitz, Chief Justice
Yes, a jury could reasonably find that the employer's actions in allegedly misrepresenting the RIF and terminating the employee, combined with the employee's financial obligations and the threat of immediate deprivation of income, could constitute "coercive acts" for the purpose of economic duress, thereby allowing rescission of the separation agreement. Chief Justice Rabinowitz agreed with the majority that there were jury issues regarding the first two elements of economic duress (involuntary acceptance and no reasonable alternative). However, he disagreed with the majority's conclusion that Zeilinger failed to raise a jury issue as to the third element: "coercive acts" on the part of SAPC and a causal link between those acts and the economic duress. The dissent argued that a jury could reasonably conclude that SAPC’s threatened deprivation of income, especially if the termination itself was wrongful and not a bona fide RIF, directly contributed to Zeilinger’s economic distress. The dissent pointed to Zeilinger's arguments that her financial obligations were partly based on SAPC management assurances, that she was added to the RIF list to avoid progressive discipline steps, and that her supervisor was aware of her financial difficulties. Therefore, the dissent believed that the imminent deprivation of income, which would have a catastrophic effect on her financial situation, could be seen as a direct causal factor, and that Zeilinger's evidence on the wrongfulness of her termination was sufficient to withstand a motion for directed verdict.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the high bar for proving economic duress, particularly in the employment context, emphasizing that an employee's pre-existing financial hardship is generally insufficient to establish the "coercive acts" element. The ruling establishes that merely offering a severance package in exchange for a release, even if the employee feels economically compelled to accept, does not inherently constitute duress unless the employer's actions are independently wrongful or coercive. It signals that courts will scrutinize the employer's conduct for active coercion rather than simply the employee's difficult circumstances, thereby reinforcing the enforceability of separation agreements and releases in termination scenarios. Future cases challenging such agreements will need to present stronger evidence of employer-initiated pressure beyond the standard offer-and-acceptance of severance.
