finding insufficient evidence to support claim of outrage when employee, after 31 years on the job, received improper written reprimand, was improperly placed on probation, and was wrongfully terminated
How later courts described this case
- finding insufficient evidence to support claim of outrage when employee, after 31 years on the job, received improper written reprimand, was improperly placed on probation, and was wrongfully terminated
- rejecting argument that Fiscal Responsibility Act and general state accounting laws established a public policy against combining public and private funds in a single account
- a party to a contract and its agents acting in the scope of their authority cannot be fiable for interfering with the party’s own contract
- “In order to support her argument, appellant must offer statutory authority to show that her dispute with [appellee] is based upon a violation of the public policy of Arkansas.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Tom Glaze, Justice, concurring in part; dissenting in part. I concur with most of the majority court’s decision, but I disagree with the court’s holding that the doctrine of collateral estoppel applies to bar appellant Sandra Palmer’s arguing whether appellee Arkansas Council on Economic Education is a “public employee” as described under Ark. Code Ann. § 21-3-201 (Repl. 1996) of the Arkansas Public Employer Age Discrimination Act.
In Carter v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 261 Ark. 728 , 551 S.W.2d 209 (1977), we stated the following rule on collateral estoppel when identical cases have been filed in federal district court and state court:
Federal district courts and state courts are separate jurisdictions. Identical cases between the same parties can be pending in each court at the same time. (Citation omitted.) It is the same situation as if identical cases between the same parties were pending in different states. In such a situation, the first forum to dispose of the case by trial enters a judgment that is binding on the parties.
See also National Bank of Commerce v. Dow Chem. Co., 338 Ark. 752 , 1 S.W.3d 443 (1999); Scogin v. Tex-Ark Joist Co., 281 Ark. 175 , 662 S.W.2d 819 (1984).
Here, the majority court misapplies the foregoing rule. The parties to the litigation were first in the federal courts where the Eighth Circuit ultimately held the Council was a “private employer” within the definition of the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Palmer v. Arkansas Council on Econ. Educ., 154 F.3d 892 (8th Cir. 1998). The ADEA, at 29 U.S.C.A. § 630 (b), defines “employer” as follows:
. . . means a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has twenty or more employees .... The term also means (1) any agent of such a person, and (2) a state or political subdivision of a state and any agency or instrumentality of a state or a political subdivision of a state ....
Citing the federal case of Schaefer v. Transportation Media, Inc., 859 F.2d 1251 (7th Cir. 1988), the Eighth Circuit Court held that, to show that a defendant institution is an agency of a state or political subdivision of a state for ADEA purposes, a plaintiff must show that the state or political subdivision had some supervisory control over the plaintiff. (Emphasis added.)
The instant case involves the Arkansas Age Discrimination Act, not the ADEA, and for purposes of this state Act, a “public employer” is defined as an agency, . . . counsel, ... or other entity of the state supported by appropriation of state or federal funds, or any county of municipality or other political subdivision of this state. “Public employer” specifically includes public universities, colleges, and public school districts.
As can be readily seen, the term “employer” differs by definition and significance depending upon whether one is interpreting and applying either the ADEA or the state Age Discrimination Act. In short, Palmer’s suit in the federal courts is clearly not identical to the one Palmer now brings in the state courts involving a different act. Consequently, those federal decisions do not answer whether the council is, or is not, a public employer under the state Act, and collateral estoppel does not prevent Palmer from attempting to invoke that state Act. That specific legal issue is not addressed in this appeal.
While Palmer, in my opinion, is not precluded from arguing the Council is a public employer under the Arkansas Age Discrimination Act, she does not show how this might allow her a right of action under the state Act. As the trial court found in its order, granting the Council summary judgment, Palmer has failed to demonstrate where the language of that Act gives her a private right of action.
Nonetheless, Palmer asserts she has shown the Council is a public employer as defined under the Act because the Council’s budget is comprised of over 55% in monies from the Arkansas Department of Education, and because it also receives indirect subsidiaries through lease arrangements. In addition, she argues that evidence was presented which by inference showed the Council terminated Palmer because of her age. 1 As a result, Palmer maintains she has an action for wrongful discharge because she was discharged in violation of the public policy of this state. That public policy, Palmer submits, is reflected by the terms set out in Ark. Code Ann. § 21-3-203 (a)(i), which in relevant part reads: “It shall be unlawful for a public employer ... to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of the individual’s age.”
Arkansas recognizes at least four exceptions to the at-will doctrine, excluding implied contracts and estoppel. These are: (1) cases in which the employee is discharged for refusing to violate a criminal statute; (2) cases in which the employee is discharged for exercising a statutory right; (3) cases in which the employee is discharged for complying with a statutory duty; and (4) cases in which employees are discharged in violation of the general public policy of the state. (Emphasis added.) Sterling Drug, Inc. v. Oxford, 294 Ark. 239 , 743 S.W.2d 380 (1988). Our court has stated that it is generally recognized that the public policy of a state is found in its constitution and statutes. Id. In Sterling Drug, we held:
[A]n employer should not have an absolute and unfettered right to terminate an employee for an act done for the good of the public. Therefore, we hold that an at-will employee has a cause of action for wrongful discharge if he or she is fired in violation of a well-established public policy of the state. This is a limited exception to the employment-at-will doctrine. It is not meant to protect merely private or proprietary interests.
Although I agree with the majority opinion that the trial court was correct in granting the Council and the other appellees summary judgment regarding the claims of tortious interference and tort of outrage, I cannot agree that Palmer has failed to show material fact issues exist for a jury determination as to whether she was wrongfully discharged.
For example, appellee RPL issued a letter to the Council’s chairman and director stating that before the Council could terminate an employee for age, it should insure the employee be given an opportunity to salvage her retirement and related benefits. RPL also stated that if Palmer filed a claim, she would likely win.