 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Murcott v. Best Western International8/31/2000
at in his fifteen years as Best Western's CEO there had not been another situation -- apart from the termination of Carpenter on the same day -- in which a vice president had been discharged without his recommendation.
B. Procedural Background
Murcott filed an amended complaint against Best Western for wrongful discharge based upon whistle-blowing, free speech violations, and age discrimination, as well as for defamation and tortious interference with contractual relations. Best Western moved for partial summary judgment on the whistle-blowing, free speech, and contract claims. The superior court granted the motion. After a final trial judgment on the remaining counts, Murcott appealed to this court. Pursuant to a stipulation by the parties, the age discrimination and defamation claims were dismissed. We reversed the grant of summary judgment in an unpublished memorandum decision and remanded the matter to the superior court.
On remand, Best Western again moved for summary judgment on the whistle-blowing, free speech and contract claims, and Murcott agreed to dismiss the contract claim. The superior court denied the summary judgment motion as to the whistle-blowing and free speech claims.
A jury trial began with the remaining counts treated as a single whistle-blowing claim. Best Western made an oral motion for a directed verdict on liability, which was denied. The trial court did grant Best Western's oral motion for a directed verdict on punitive damages. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Murcott with damages in the amount of $1.75 million.
Best Western filed a JMOL motion pursuant to Rule 50(b), Ariz. R. Civ. P., which the trial court denied. These appeals followed.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Standards of Review
The tests for granting a directed verdict and a JMOL motion are the same. See Times Mirror Co. v. Sisk, 122 Ariz. 174, 178, 593 P.2d 924, 928 (App. 1978). Such motions should be granted only "if the facts produced in support of the claim or defense have so little probative value, given the quantum of evidence required, that reasonable people could not agree with the conclusion advanced by the proponent of the claim or defense." Orme School v. Reeves, 166 Ariz. 301, 309, 802 P.2d 1000, 1008 (1990). On appeal from the denial of motions for a directed verdict or JMOL, we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Rocky Mountain Fire & Cas. Co. v. Biddulph Oldsmobile, 131 Ariz. 289, 292, 640 P.2d 851, 854 (1982).
B. Best Western's Appeal
Best Western attacks the trial court's decisions on two fronts: (1) as a matter of law, Murcott's evidence of whistle-blowing failed to support a finding of liability, and (2) as a matter of law, Murcott's evidence failed to support the award of emotional distress damages.
1. As A Matter of Law, Murcott's Evidence of Whistle-blowing Supported the Verdict.
a. Murcott's Whistle-blowing Did Serve A Public Purpose.
According to the public policy exception to the at-will rule, an employer may not fire an employee for a reason against public policy:
Firing for bad cause - one against public policy articulated by constitutional, statutory or decisional law - is not a right inherent in the at-will contract, or in any other contract, even if expressly provided. Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Memorial Hosp., 147 Ariz. 370, 381, 710 P.2d 1025, 1036 (1985).
The few Arizona decisions discussing public policy violations for whistle-blowing discharges recognize certain essential elements. In Wagner v. City of Glo
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Arizona Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|