# Berube v. Fashion Centre, Ltd.

> Utah Supreme Court · March 20, 1989 · 104 Utah Adv. Rep. 4

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9597736

## Case

- **Full name:** Shirley BERUBE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. FASHION CENTRE, LTD., Dba Fashion Gal of Ogden, Joseph E. Torman, Dba Western States Polygraph, Steven Taylor, and John and Jane Does 1-10, Defendants and Appellees
- **Court:** Utah Supreme Court
- **Decided:** March 20, 1989
- **Citations:** 104 Utah Adv. Rep. 4; 771 P.2d 1033; 4 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 353; 1989 Utah LEXIS 22; 1989 WL 27680
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Howe
- **Judges:** Durham, Zimmerman, Stewart, Hall, Howe
- **Cited by:** 140 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9597736

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the court would recognize only those public policies that “are so substantial and fundamental that there can be virtually no question as to their importance for promotion of the public good”
- noting, in context of public policy exception to employment-at-will rule, that "we will construe public policies narrowly and will generally utilize those based on prior legislative pronouncements or judicial decisions, applying only those principles which are so substantial a…
- recognizing that "public policy'" can be "de-duc{ed] in the given circumstances from constitutional or statutory provisions" (internal quotation marks omitted)
- recognizing that ―public policy‖ can be ―deduc[ed] in the given circumstances from constitutional or statutory provisions‖ (internal quotation marks omitted)
- recognizing the existence of an action for wrongful termination of an at will employee in violation of a substantial and important public policy

## Opinion text

HOWE, Associate Chief Justice
(concurring):
I concur in Parts I, II, and III. I concur only in the results in Parts IV and V, deeming it not necessary or appropriate here to go beyond the written policy manual of the employer, which I view as being part of the total employment contract. Rose v. Allied Dev. Co., 719 P.2d 83 (Utah 1986). The manual stated:
Except in the situations listed below, an employee may not be dismissed unless a verbal and a written warning have been issued and a reasonable opportunity to improve performance has been provided.
The plaintiff was terminated without warning. I would remand the case to the trial court for a determination of whether the employer’s discharge of her violated its own policy manual or whether she was properly discharged for unreasonably refusing to take a polygraph test or for failing a polygraph test, which grounds do not require a previous warning.
HALL, C.J., concurs in the concurring opinion of HOWE, Associate Chief Justice.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9597736. Public record. Not legal advice.