No. 12928
I N THE SUPREM6 COURT OF THE STATE O M N A A
F OTN
1975
TERRY D. BROWN,
p l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t ,
STAUFFER CHEMICAL GO. ,.. . , A C o r p o r a t i o n ,
and LeRoy Mehring, a n I n d i v i d u a l ,
Defendants and Respondents.
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e Second J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable J o h n B. McClernan, J u d g e p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel o f Record:
For A p p e l l a n t :
M c K i t t r i c k and Duffy, G r e a t F a l l s , Montana
Joseph Duffy and L e s l i e W a i t e , 111, a r g u e d , G r e a t
F a l l s , Montana
F o r Respondent:
C o r e t t e , Smith and Dean, B u t t e , Montana
R o b e r t H. P r i g g e a r g u e d , B u t t e , Montana
Submitted: J u n e 1 7 , 1975
--
Decided : >j{J: I \ Q ) i l
3'
I
Filed :
M r . J u s t i c e Wesley C a s t l e s d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court.
This i s an a p p e a l from a summary judgment i n f a v o r of
defendant S t a u f f e r Chemical Co., and an a p p e a l from a damage
award of $1.00 i n f a v o r o f p l a i n t i f f T e r r y D. Brown and a g a i n s t
defendant LeRoy Mehring.
The complaint a l l e g e s t h a t Brown was an employee of
S t a u f f e r and t h a t Mehring was a s u p e r v i s o r y employee of S t a u f f e r .
That Brown was h i r e d on o r about December 4 , 1972, and worked
u n t i l December 2 3 , 1972, a t an h o u r l y r a t e of pay a t ~ t a u f f e r ' s
p l a n t n e a r S i l v e r Bow, Montana.
A t t h e time Brown was employed, he was e i g h t e e n y e a r s of
age. There was no w r i t t e n c o n t r a c t .
Brown a l l e g e s t h a t w h i l e he was working f o r S t a u f f e r , h i s
II
s u p e r v i s o r Mehring engaged i n a c o n s t a n t c o u r s e of a c t i o n of
harassment.:' Asked what t h i s c o n s i s t e d o f , Brown s a i d i n answer
t o interrogatories:
"INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Set f o r t h a l l t h e f a c t s , a c t i o n s
and circumstances a l l e g e d by you i n Paragraph 6 of Count
I of your Complaint of an a l l e g e d 1 c o n s t a n t c o u r s e of
a c t i o n of harassment' by t h e Defendant Mehring.
"ANSFJER: The time was 7:45 p.m. when I was i n t h e
o f f i c e a t t h e h i l l . I was t a l k i n g on t h e phone when
LeRoy came i n t o t h e o f f i c e . The f i r s t t h i n g he d i d
was say, 1 ~ e t ' s go s w e e t h e a r t ' . Well, I t o l d him m y
name wasn't sweetheart! He s a i d , 'O.K., Sweetheart. I
And t h a t ' s when I c a l l e d him a scab. Right away he
s a i d 'DO you want t o go home, boy?' I d i d n ' t s a y any-
t h i n g , I j u s t hung up t h e phone and he s t a r t e d g e t t i n g on
m back some more. He s a i d I was f i r e d and I s a i d , 'What
y
f o r , c a l l i n g you a s c a b ? ' He s a i d , 'yeah!' I went o u t of
t h e o f f i c e i n t o t h e lunchroom t o g e t m s t u f f t o g e t h e r
y
when LeRoy came i n a g a i n . He s t a r t e d t e l l i n g m t o g e t
e
out of t h e r e . He s a i d , ' I t o l d you you a r e f i r e d . 1
And he k e p t t e l l i n g m e t o g e t o u t . I t o l d him t o ' g e t
o f f m back' and t h a t I ' d go when I g o t m c o a t and
y y
bucket. IIe k e p t t e l l i n g m t o g e t o u t s o I g o t m
e y
s t u f f t o g e t h e r and l e f t . Mehring c o n t i n u a l l y c a l l e d
m I s w e e t h e a r t ' a s w e l l a s obscene names and-gave m
e e
p a t s on t h e r e a r a t d i f f e r e n t times." (Emphasis s u p p l i e d )
The same a l l e g e d f a c t s a r e a s s e r t e d by Brown a s t o h i s
a l l e g a t i o n of " w i l l f u l and malicious a s s a u l t and i n j u r i e s and
humiliation. 11
11
Brown a s s e r t s t h a t he was covered by, p r o t e c t e d by1' and
had t h e b e n e f i t s of an agreement between S t a u f f e r and B u t t e
Teamsters Union, Local No. 2 e f f e c t i v e June 28, 1972. Brown
admits t h a t he was covered by a l l of t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h a t
agreement, i n c l u d i n g t h e following:
"INTERROGATORY 13: I n t h e event t h a t you claim
NO.
any r i g h t s under s a i d agreement between S t a u f f e r
Chemical Company and B u t t e Teamsters Union, Local
No. 2, does S e c t i o n 7.5 r e a d i n g a s follows:
"'7.5 A employee s h a l l be on p r o b a t i o n
n
u n t i l he has worked up t o t h i r t y (30) c a l e n d a r
days following t h e d a t e of h i s employment u n l e s s
t h e probationary period i s extended by mutual
agreement. I f t h e employee i s r e t a i n e d a f t e r h i s
p r o b a t i o n a r y p e r i o d , h i s name s h a l l b e added t o
t h e s e n i o r i t y l i s t a s of t h e d a t e of h i s l a s t
employment. The company may, i n i t s s o l e d i s -
c r e t i o n , t e r m m a t e t h e employment o i an employee
on p r o b a t i o n . '
II
apply t o your period of employment by
S t a u f f e r Chemical Company?
"ANSWER: I had n o t worked 30 c a l e n d a r days p r i o r
t o m dismissal."
y (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . )
It
The above c o n s t i t u t e s a l l of t h e evidence on wrongful
discharge. II
It i s c l e a r from Brown's own admission t h a t he had n o t
worked t h i r t y c a l e n d a r days and was s t i l l on probation. He has
completely admitted t h a t d u r i n g t h o s e t h i r t y c a l e n d a r days:
11
The Company may, i n i t s s o l e d i s c r e t i o n ,
t e r m i n a t e t h e employment of an employee on
p r o b a t i o n . 11
The t r i a l c o u r t had ample and s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o g r a n t
a motion f o r summary judgment f o r S t a u f f e r a s a m a t t e r of law.
I n Count I1 of t h e complaint p l a i n t i f f a l l e g e s g e n e r a l
damages of $1,000 a g a i n s t S t a u f f e r and p u n i t i v e damages of $50,000
f o r a l l e g e d a c t s c o n s t i t u t i n g w i l l f u l and malicious a s s a u l t and
humiliation.
I n l i g h t of s e c t i o n 92-204.1, R.C.M. 1947, and McGrew v.
Consolidated Freightways, I n c . , 141 Mont. 324, 377 P.2d 350,
~ r o w n ' s s o l e remedy a g a i n s t h i s employer S t a u f f e r f o r a s s a u l t ,
i f any, was a c l a i m under t h e Workmen's Compensation Act.
The t r i a l c o u r t was completely j u s t i f i e d i n g r a n t i n g
summary judgment f o r S t a u f f e r when t h e answers t o d e f e n d a n t ' s
i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s were f u l l y s u f f i c i e n t t o show t h a t t h e r e was
no genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t a s t o ~ t a u f f e r ' sl i a b i l i t y
toward Brown f o r wrongful d i s c h a r g e o r a s s a u l t and b a t t e r y .
As t o t h e i s s u e of damages o f $1.00 only a s a g a i n s t
Mehring, t h e e n t i r e b a s i s f o r t h e claimed damages a r e t h e same
a s p r e v i o u s l y quoted from t h e answer t o I n t e r r o g a t o r y No. 6.
1I
Put simply t h a t b a s i s is---Mering called me sweetheart" a s
w e l l a s obscene names and gave m p a t s on t h e r e a r a t d i f f e r e n t
e
times. These a r e a l l t h e f a c t s of t h e s o - c a l l e d a s s a u l t and
battery. Obviously t h e mere words a r e n o t an a s s a u l t ; and
11
c e r t a i n l y i n a p l a n t working environment a p a t on t h e r e a r "
i s h a r d l y a c t i o n a b l e a s s a u l t and b a t t e r y . The e n t i r e exchange
i s i n s i g n i f i c a n t and Montana's 1947 Revised Codes, s e c t i o n 49-125,
s t a t e s h he law d i s r e g a r d s t r i f l e s " . Even assuming t h a t a
b a t t e r y occurred, t h e award of nominal damages i s a l l t h a t i s
required. The t r i a l c o u r t was j u s t i f i e d i n i t s r u l i n g t h a t t h e
r e c o r d d i s c l o s e d no genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t on p u n i t i v e
damages.
The m a t e r i a l f a c t s were contained i n t h e complaint and
answers t o i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s . There simply was n o t j u s t i c i a b l e i s s u e
a s t o defendant S t a u f f e r and summary judgment was c o r r e c t . Nominal
damages of $1.00 a s a g a i n s t defendant Mehring a r e a l s o j u s t i f i e d
on t h i s r e c o r d , and t h i s Court does n o t wish t o i n d u l g e i n an
extended d i s c u s s i o n o f law on such a t r i f l i n g matter.
The judgment i s a f f i r m e d .
W Concur:
e
. .
i( 1
If,. * ?
,
I. 7s
' +*
e:J:d,.: " d W*" 5 - f
-
.
-b---r,bd-,Lm--Lr.-h-------------'z-%a
Chief J u s t i c e