No. 80-478
IN THE SUPREfiE COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1981
MARGARET NYE ,
Petitioner and Appellant,
VS.
THE DEPARTMENT OF LIVESTOCK, et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
Appeal from: District Court of the Fifth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Jefferson
Honorable Frank Blair, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Patrick Flaherty argued, Great Falls, Montana
For Respondent:
John Bobinski argued, Helena, Montana
Submitted: September 26, 1981
Decided: January 14, 1982
?
5nrJ 1 ," 1532
ft
Filed:
M r . J u s t i c e F r e d J. Weber d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e
Court .
M a r g a r e t Nye b r o u g h t an a c t i o n i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of
t h e F i f t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , J e f f e r s o n County, Montana,
s e e k i n g j u d i c i a l r e v i e w of t h e t e r m i n a t i o n of h e r employment
and damages f o r s l a n d e r and wrongful d i s c h a r g e . The D i s t r i c t
C o u r t d e n i e d t h e p e t i t i o n f o r j u d i c i a l r e v i e w and d i s m i s s e d
t h e a c t i o n on i t s m e r i t s . Nye a p p e a l e d . W reverse the
e
p o r t i o n of t h e o r d e r d i s m i s s i n g t h e wrongful d i s c h a r g e c l a i m
and remand t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s .
M a r g a r e t Nye was h i r e d by t h e Department of L i v e s t o c k
of t h e S t a t e of Montana ("Department") i n October 1977. She
i n i t i a l l y worked a s a p e r m i t c l e r k f o r t h e Department. The
r e c o r d d o e s n o t d i s c l o s e t h e g r a d e a t which t h e p e r m i t c l e r k
p o s i t i o n was c l a s s i f i e d under t h e s t a t e employee c l a s s i f i c a t i o n
plan. I n May 1979, Nye was promoted t o t h e p o s i t i o n of
g e n e r a l o f f i c e c l e r k V a t a p o s i t i o n c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of g r a d e
8. Nye s t a t e d a t t h e t i m e of h e r promotion t h a t s h e u n d e r s t o o d
t h a t p u r s u a n t t o Department p o l i c y s h e would be p u t i n a
p r o b a t i o n a r y s t a t u s f o r s i x months. I n August 1979, Nye's
s u p e r v i s o r s i n t h e Department d e t e r m i n e d t h a t s h e was n o t
p e r f o r m i n g a d e q u a t e l y i n h e r new p o s i t i o n . On August 20,
Nye was t o l d of t h e d e f i c i e n c i e s i n h e r work and was g i v e n a
t e n day warning n o t i c e which informed h e r t h a t t h e d e f i c i e n c i e s
must be c o r r e c t e d . Nye's work was s p o t checked d u r i n g t h e
e n s u i n g t e n day p e r i o d and h e r s u p e r v i s o r s d e t e r m i n e d t h a t
s h e had n o t c o r r e c t e d c e r t a i n d e f i c i e n c i e s . Nye was t e r m i n a t e d
on August 31, 1979.
Nye invoked t h e D e p a r t m e n t ' s g r i e v a n c e p r o c e d u r e s i n
order t o challenge her termination. A three-person hearing
committee was formed and a h e a r i n g was had on December 1 8 ,
1979. Both Nye and t h e Department w e r e r e p r e s e n t e d by
counsel. The p a r t i e s b r o u g h t w i t n e s s e s , p r e s e n t e d e x h i b i t s ,
and s u b m i t t e d b r i e f s and proposed d e c i s i o n s t o t h e committee.
The h e a r i n g committee t h e n gave i t s o p i n i o n and recommendation
t o t h e head of t h e Department of L i v e s t o c k . The committee
concluded t h a t d e p a r t m e n t s of s t a t e government may r e q u i r e
employees t o e n t e r i n t o a p r o b a t i o n a r y p e r i o d when t h e y a r e
promoted t o a new p o s i t i o n and t h a t t h e Department of
Livestock's personnel p o l i c i e s properly included a probationary
p e r i o d f o r any promotion t o a new p o s i t i o n . Nye's r i g h t s
were viewed as t h e r i g h t s of a p r o b a t i o n a r y employee.
The h e a r i n g committee found t h a t Nye knew and u n d e r s t o o d
t h a t s h e had made m i s t a k e s i n h e r new p o s i t i o n . The committee
a l s o found t h a t Nye misunderstood t h e t o t a l i t y of t h e m i s t a k e s
made by h e r , and found t h a t s h e was under t h e i m p r e s s i o n
t h a t t h e problems had been r e s o l v e d . The committee d e t e r m i n e d
t h a t t h e Department had n o t p r o p e r l y t r a i n e d and s u p e r v i s e d
Nye. The h e a r i n g committee d e c i d e d t h a t t e r m i n a t i o n was a n
unduly h a r s h method of d e a l i n g w i t h Nye's d e f i c i e n c i e s ,
e s p e c i a l l y when h e r e x c e l l e n t p r i o r work r e c o r d w i t h t h e
Department w a s c o n s i d e r e d . The committee d e t e r m i n e d t h a t
because t h e Department's grievance procedure a p p l i e d t o a l l
employees, even p r o b a t i o n a r y employees must be d e a l t w i t h
fairly. The committee concluded t h a t t h e r e was a " l a c k of
t o t a l f a i r n e s s " i n t h e t e r m i n a t i o n of Nye. The h e a r i n g
committee recommended t h a t Nye n o t be r e i n s t a t e d t o h e r
p r e v i o u s p o s i t i o n and n o t be awarded back pay. (It is
u n c l e a r whether " p r e v i o u s p o s i t i o n " r e f e r s t o t h e p e r m i t
c l e r k job o r t h e g e n e r a l o f f i c e c l e r k V j o b . ) The committee
f u r t h e r recommended t h a t Nye b e awarded $1,495.36 a s compensation
f o r t h e u n f a i r t r e a t m e n t g i v e n h e r by t h e Department.
F i n a l l y , t h e committee recommended t h a t Nye be g r a n t e d a n
e n t i t l e m e n t t o any g r a d e 7 o r 8 p o s i t i o n i n t h e Department
f o r which s h e was q u a l i f i e d . The e n t i t l e m e n t was t o a p p l y
t o any such p o s i t i o n which became v a c a n t i n a two-year
period.
The r e p o r t and recommendations of t h e h e a r i n g committee
were s u b m i t t e d t o t h e d i r e c t o r of t h e Department of L i v e s t o c k
i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h Department g r i e v a n c e p r o c e d u r e s . The
d i r e c t o r r e f u s e d t o f o l l o w t h e c o m m i t t e e ' s recommendations
and a f f i r m e d Nye's t e r m i n a t i o n . Nye f i l e d s u i t i n D i s t r i c t
C o u r t s e e k i n g j u d i c i a l r e v i e w of t h e agency a c t i o n , damages
f o r s l a n d e r , a n d , by way of an amended c o m p l a i n t , damages
f o r wrongful d i s c h a r g e . The d i s t r i c t judge d e n i e d t h e
p e t i t i o n f o r j u d i c i a l r e v i e w and d i s m i s s e d t h e c a u s e on i t s
m e r i t s b e c a u s e he d e t e r m i n e d t h a t Nye had o n l y a c o n t r a c t a t
will. Nye a p p e a l e d , and r a i s e d t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s :
(1) Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r by denying j u d i c i a l
r e v i e w of t h e Department d i r e c t o r ' s d e c i s i o n ?
(2) Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t err by d i s m i s s i n g t h e
s l a n d e r c o m p l a i n t ? and
(3) Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t err by denying Nye's motion
t o amend t h e c o m p l a i n t f o r t h e p u r p o s e of s e e k i n g damages i n
wrongful d i s c h a r g e ?
J u d i c i a l Review
Nye based h e r p e t i t i o n f o r r e v i e w i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t
upon t h e language of t h e D e p a r t m e n t ' s g r i e v a n c e p o l i c y and
upon t h e Montana A d m i n i s t r a t i v e P r o c e d u r e Act ( M A P A ) .
The Department of L i v e s t o c k h a s a d o p t e d p e r s o n n e l
p o l i c i e s developed by t h e Department of A d m i n i s t r a t i o n .
P o l i c y 3-0130, D i s c i p l i n e Handling; P o l i c y 3-0125, Grievances;
Vol. I11 Montana O p e r a t i o n s Manual. P o l i c y 3-0125, Grievances,
provides t h a t :
" I f t h e employee i s n o t s a t i s f i e d w i t h t h e
outcome of t h e D i r e c t o r ' s d e c i s i o n , t h e
g r i e v a n c e may be b r o u g h t b e f o r e t h e a p p l i -
c a b l e s t a t u t o r i l y a u t h o r i z e d r e v i e w body:
t h e Board of P e r s o n n e l Appeals, t h e M e r i t
System C o u n c i l , t h e Human R i g h t s Commission,
o r any a p p r o p r i a t e f e d e r a l e n f o r c e m e n t agency,
while those grievances - allowed r e d r e s s
not
-- a f o r e m e n t i o n e d m a y - pursued a t
with the be
the d i s t r i c t court level. " (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . )
W a g r e e w i t h t h e Department t h a t t h e c o n c l u d i n g l a n g u a g e of
e
t h e above e x c e r p t c a n n o t , of i t s e l f , c r e a t e a r i g h t of
j u d i c i a l review. P o l i c y 3-0125 i s a n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e g u l a t i o n .
I n Montana, o n l y t h e l e g i s l a t u r e may v a l i d l y p r o v i d e f o r
j u d i c i a l r e v i e w of agency d e c i s i o n s . "The l e g i s l a t u r e may
p r o v i d e f o r d i r e c t r e v i e w by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of d e c i s i o n s
of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e agencies." Mont. Const. a r t . V I I , §
4 , c l . 2. A r i g h t of j u d i c i a l r e v i e w c a n n o t b e c r e a t e d by
agency f i a t .
I n o r d e r f o r Nye t o have a r i g h t of j u d i c i a l review
under MAPA, h e r s must be a " c o n t e s t e d c a s e . " S e c t i o n 2-4-
702 (1)( a ) , MCA, p r o v i d e s t h a t I' [ a ] p e r s o n who h a s e x h a u s t e d
a l l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e m e d i e s a v a i l a b l e w i t h i n t h e agency and
who i s a g g r i e v e d by a f i n a l d e c i s i o n i n a c o n t e s t e d c a s e i s
e n t i t l e d t o j u d i c i a l r e v i e w under t h i s c h a p t e r . " A s defined
a t s e c t i o n 2-4-102 ( 4 ) , MCA, " ' [ c ] o n t e s t e d c a s e ' means any
p r o c e e d i n g b e f o r e a n agency i n which a d e t e r m i n a t i o n of
l e g a l r i g h t s , d u t i e s , o r p r i v i l e g e s of a p a r t y i s r e q u i r e d
by law t o be made a f t e r a n o p p o r t u n i t y f o r h e a r i n g . "
"The d e f i n i t i o n r e f e r s t o d e t e r m i n a t i o n s which
a r e ' r e q u i r e d by law' t o be made a f t e r a n
opportunity f o r hearing. This has broader
meaning t h a n merely a s t a t u t o r y r e q u i r e m e n t
f o r an opportunity f o r hearing. It includes
s i t u a t i o n s where a h e a r i n g i s r e q u i r e d a s a
m a t t e r of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t . " Administra-
t i v e P r o c e d u r e s Subcommittee Comments, T i t l e
2, C h a p t e r 4 , P a r t 1, MCA ( A n n o t a t i o n s ) .
A p p e l l a n t Nye h a s c i t e d no a u t h o r i t y , e i t h e r s t a t u t o r y
O r c o n s t i t u t i o n a l , which i n d i c a t e s t h a t a p e r s o n i n Nye's
p o s i t i o n i s " r e q u i r e d by law" t o be g i v e n a n o p p o r t u n i t y f o r
h e a r i n g p r i o r t o a d e t e r m i n a t i o n of h e r o r h i s r i g h t s o r
privileges. The r e s e a r c h conducted by t h i s C o u r t h a s n o t
r e v e a l e d any such l e g a l r e q u i r e m e n t . W e conclude t h a t t h i s
c a s e d o e s n o t q u a l i f y as a c o n t e s t e d c a s e under MAPA.
The D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d n o t err i n r e f u s i n g t o g r a n t
Nye's p e t i t i o n f o r j u d i c i a l r e v i e w .
Slander
Nye's c o m p l a i n t a l l e g e d t h a t h e r s u p e r v i s o r s a t t h e
Department of L i v e s t o c k made s t a t e m e n t s a b o u t h e r a b i l i t y t o
work and p e r f o r m t h e t a s k s a t h e r work s i t e which w e r e
e i t h e r i n t e n t i o n a l l y m a l i c i o u s o r made w i t h g r o s s d i s r e g a r d
for the truth. The c o m p l a i n t a l s o a l l e g e d t h a t c e r t a i n
Department a d m i n i s t r a t o r s c a u s e d t h e s e s t a t e m e n t s t o b e
p u b l i s h e d i n Nye's n o t i c e o f d i s c h a r g e , and t h a t t h e p u b l i c a t i o n
was made w i t h r e c k l e s s d i s r e g a r d f o r t h e t r u t h . Nye a l l e g e d
t h a t s h e w a s i n j u r e d i n v a r i o u s ways a s a r e s u l t of t h e
making of t h e above s t a t e m e n t s . The Department of L i v e s t o c k
argued t o the D i s t r i c t Court t h a t t h e i n t r a d e p a r t m e n t a l
p u b l i c a t i o n s complained of by Nye were a b s o l u t e l y p r i v i l e g e d
under Montana law. W e agree.
S e c t i o n 27-1-804(1), MCA, provides t h a t a privileged
p u b l i c a t i o n i s one made i n t h e p r o p e r d i s c h a r g e of a n o f f i c i a l
duty. The language of s e c t i o n 27-1-804(1) h a s been a p p l i e d
by t h i s C o u r t t o f a c t s q u i t e s i m i l a r t o t h o s e now b e f o r e u s .
I n S t o r c h v. Board of D i r . of E a s t . Mont. Reg. F i v e M.H.C.
( 1 9 7 6 ) , 169 Mont. 176, 545 P.2d 6 4 4 , t h e p l a i n t i f f was a n
employee of a s t a t e r e g i o n a l m e n t a l h e a l t h c e n t e r who had
been d i s c h a r g e d b e c a u s e he was u n c l e a n and unkempt and was
l i v i n g w i t h a woman n o t h i s w i f e . One of t h e b a s e s f o r
S t o r c h ' s s u i t a g a i n s t h i s employers was t h a t t h e y had 1 - i b e l e d
him. T h i s C o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e p r i v i l e g e a f f o r d e d by s e c t i o n
27-1-804 (1), MCA, i s a b s o l u t e .
" [ I ]t c o n s t i t u t e s an a b s o l u t e p r i v i l e g e w i t h
the only requirement being t h a t t h e i n t r a -
d e p a r t m e n t communication be one r e n d e r e d w h i l e
engaged i n a n ' o f f i c i a l d u t y . ' There c a n be
no d o u b t t h a t t h e h i r i n g and f i r i n g of em-
p l o y e e s i s p a r t of t h e ' o f f i c i a l d u t y ' of
Montana Regional H e a l t h C e n t e r s . ..
"Whether s t a t e m e n t s made by s u c h p u b l i c
o f f i c e r s i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e h i r i n g and f i r i n g
of employees may be s u b j e c t t o a b s o l u t e
p r i v i l e g e h a s been answered i n t h e a f f i r m a -
t i v e many t i m e s . Under f a c t s s i m i l a r t o t h e
i n s t a n t c a s e , t h e United S t a t e s Supreme
C o u r t i n B a r r v . Matteo, 360 U.S. 564, 571,
79 S.Ct. 1335,-3 L.Ed. 2d 1434, 1 4 4 1 , s t a t e d
t h a t i n s o f a r as a p u b l i c o f f i c e r w a s a c t i n g
w i t h i n t h e s c o p e of h i s a u t h o r i t y h i s com-
m u n i c a t i o n was a b s o l u t e l y p r i v i l e g e d . "
S t o r c h , 169 Mont. a t 181-82, 545 ~ . 2 d t a
647-48.
W f i n d t h a t t h e a b s o l u t e p r i v i l e g e a f f o r d e d by s e c t i o n
e
27-1-804(1), MCA, a p p l i e s t o t h e f a c t s of t h i s case. Margaret
Nye had no c a u s e of a c t i o n f o r s l a n d e r , and t h e D i s t r i c t
C o u r t d i d n o t e r r by d i s m i s s i n g t h a t e l e m e n t of h e r c o m p l a i n t .
Wrongful D i s c h a r g e
Nye s o u g h t t o amend h e r c o m p l a i n t t o add a c l a i m f o r
wrongful d i s c h a r g e , b u t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t r e f u s e d t o a l l o w
amendment. W e do n o t a g r e e t h a t wrongful d i s c h a r g e c o u l d
n o t l i e a s a m a t t e r of law, and remand t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t
t o a l l o w amendment of t h e c o m p l a i n t .
The D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s o r d e r of d i s m i s s a l a p p e a r s t o r e s t
upon t h e f a c t t h a t N y e ' s employment was " a t w i l l . " Section
39-2-503, MCA. However, t h e t o r t o f wrongful d i s c h a r g e may
a p p l y t o a n a t w i l l employment s i t u a t i o n . I n f a c t , the
t h e o r y o f wrongful d i s c h a r g e h a s developed i n r e s p o n s e t o
t h e h a r s h n e s s of t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e a t w i l l d o c t r i n e ,
under which a n employment may be t e r m i n a t e d w i t h o u t c a u s e .
See P i e r c e v. Ortho P h a r m a c e u t i c a l Corp. ( 1 9 8 0 ) , 84 N . J . 58,
417 A.2d 505. The d e t e r m i n a t i o n of whether t h e c a u s e of
a c t i o n a r i s e s r e s t s upon whether a n u n f a i r o r u n j u s t i f i e d
t e r m i n a t i o n was i n v i o l a t i o n of p u b l i c p o l i c y . Keneally v.
Orgain ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mont. , 606 P.2d 1 2 7 , 37 St.Rep.
A d m i n i s t r a t i v e r u l e s may be t h e s o u r c e of a p u b l i c
p o l i c y which would s u p p o r t a c l a i m of wrongful d i s c h a r g e .
P i e r c e , 417 A.2d a t 512. The S t a t e of Montana, t h r o u g h t h e
Department of A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , d e v e l o p e d p o l i c y 3-0130,
d i s c i p l i n e h a n d l i n g , and p o l i c y 3-0125, grievances. These
r u l e s f o r t h e r e s o l u t i o n of employment d i f f i c u l t i e s w e r e
a d o p t e d by t h e Department of L i v e s t o c k . P o l i c y 3-0130
states that " [ w ] hen p u n i t i v e d i s c i p l i n e i s n e c e s s a r y , j u s t
c a u s e , documentation of f a c t s and due p r o c e s s a r e r e q u i r e d . "
Under p o l i c y 3-0130
" [ j l u s t cause i s determined i f t h e a l l e g e d a c t
w e r e a n a c t u a l v i o l a t i o n of a n e s t a b l i s h e d
agency s t a n d a r d , l e g i t i m a t e o r d e r , p o l i c y ,
l a b o r agreement, f a i l u r e t o m e e t a p p l i c a b l e
p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a n d a r d s , o r a s e r i e s of l e s s e r
v i o l a t i o n s , and i f t h e employee would r e a s o n -
a b l y be e x p e c t e d t o have knowledge of t h e
aforementioned."
Due p r o c e s s i s d e f i n e d i n p o l i c y 3-0130 as
". . . a l e g a l check d e s i g n e d t o e n s u r e a n
employee: 1) i s informed of what a c t i o n i s
b e i n g t a k e n and t h e r e a s o n s f o r i t , and 2)
h a s a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o respond t o and q u e s t i o n
t h e a c t i o n and t o defend o r e x p l a i n t h e
questioned behavior o r a c t i o n s " .
The a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e above r u l e s may b e c h a l l e n g e d t h r o u g h
t h e g r i e v a n c e p o l i c y , 3-0125, which was d e s i g n e d i n p a r t t o
" g u a r a n t e e a l l e l i g i b l e S t a t e employees a c o n s i s t e n t , e x p e d i t i o u s
and e q u i t a b l e means of a d j u s t i n g g r i e v a n c e s . " W find that
e
t h e Department of L i v e s t o c k f a i l e d t o a p p l y i t s own r e g u l a t i o n s
t o M a r g a r e t Nye, and t h e r e b y v i o l a t e d p u b l i c p o l i c y .
M a r g a r e t Nye w a s t e r m i n a t e d from h e r p r o b a t i o n a r y
s t a t u s p o s i t i o n a s a n o f f i c e c l e r k V f o r performance d e f i c i e n c i e s
related to t h a t position. I n t h a t t e r m i n a t i o n , t h e Department
f o l l o w e d i t s t e r m i n a t i o n and g r i e v a n c e p r o c e d u r e s . However,
t h e same p r o c e d u r e s were - a p p l i e d t o t h e p e r m i t c l e r k
not
p o s i t i o n i n which Nye had a c h i e v e d permanent s t a t u s . "'Permanent
s t a t u s ' means t h e s t a t e a n employee a t t a i n s a f t e r s a t i s f a c t o r i l y
c o m p l e t i n g an a p p r o p r i a t e p r o b a t i o n a r y p e r i o d i n a permanent
position." 2-18-101 (6), MCA [now 2-18-101 (lo), MCA] .
Having completed h e r p r o b a t i o n a r y p e r i o d , Nye had permanent
s t a t u s i n t h e p e r m i t c l e r k job. The f a c t t h a t s h e c h o s e t o
a t t e m p t t o advance w i t h i n t h e Department d i d n o t e l i m i n a t e
h e r permanent s t a t u s i n t h e p e r m i t c l e r k p o s i t i o n . Before
t h e Department c o u l d remove Nye from t h e p e r m i t c l e r k p o s i t i o n
i n which s h e had permanent s t a t u s , t h e Department had t h e
o b l i g a t i o n t o f o l l o w t h e p u b l i c p o l i c y e x p r e s s e d i n i t s own
regulations.
There was no showing of " j u s t c a u s e " f o r removing Nye
from h e r permanent s t a t u s i n t h e p e r m i t c l e r k p o s i t i o n . She
was e n t i t l e d t o p r o p e r t e r m i n a t i o n from h e r permanent p o s i t i o n .
The d i s c i p l i n e p o l i c y d e f i n e s "employee" as " a l l employees
who have s e r v e d a p r o b a t i o n a r y p e r i o d and a r e i n permanent
employment s t a t u s w i t h t h e s t a t e of Montana." M a r g a r e t Nye
was d e n i e d a " c o n s i s t e n t , e x p e d i t i o u s and e q u i t a b l e " r e s o l u t i o n
o f h e r problem, c o n t r a r y t o t h e p u b l i c p o l i c y e x p r e s s e d i n
t h e d i s c i p l i n e and g r i e v a n c e p o l i c i e s a d o p t e d by t h e Department
of Livestock.
The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e Department d i d n o t r e a l i z e
o r r e c o g n i z e t h a t i t had an o b l i g a t i o n t o f o l l o w t h e same
procedure with r e g a r d t o t h e permit c l e r k p o s i t i o n as w a s
required f o r the o f f i c e clerk V position. I t appears t h i s
w i l l r e q u i r e a change i n p o l i c y s o f a r a s Department o p e r a t i o n s
a r e concerned. Under s u c h c i r c u m s t a n c e s i t a p p e a r s f a i r t o
g i v e t h e Department t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o c o n d u c t f u r t h e r
h e a r i n g s and f o l l o w t h e p r o c e d u r e s under i t s r e g u l a t i o n s t o
d e t e r m i n e i f t h e Department and Nye may work o u t a n a c c e p t a b l e
s o l u t i o n of t h e claim.
W e a f f i r m t h e a c t i o n of t h e D i s t r i c t Court i n denying
t h e p e t i t i o n f o r j u d i c i a l r e v i e w and i n d i s m i s s i n g t h e c l a i m
of damages f o r s l a n d e r . We, t h e r e f o r e , remand t h e c a s e t o
t h e D i s t r i c t Court with t h e following i n s t r u c t i o n s :
(1) E n t e r a n a p p r o p r i a t e o r d e r r e i n s t a t i n g t h e c o m p l a i n t
of Nye s o f a r a s t h e c l a i m of wrongful d i s c h a r g e i s concerned.
(2) Enter an appropriate order holding t h e cause i n
abeyance f o r s u c h a p e r i o d of t i m e a s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t
s h a l l d e t e r m i n e t o be r e a s o n a b l e i n o r d e r t o g i v e t h e
Department o f L i v e s t o c k and t h e c l a i m a n t an o p p o r t u n i t y t o
d e t e r m i n e i f Nye s h a l l be immediately r e i n s t a t e d i n h e r
p e r m i t c l e r k job, o r i f t h e Department d e s i r e s t o t e r m i n a t e
her i n t h a t p o s i t i o n , t o follow t h e procedures provided i n
t h e Department r e g u l a t i o n s , w i t h t h e aim of s e c u r i n g a f a i r
r e s o l u t i o n of t h e d i s p u t e between t h e p a r t i e s .
(3) I n t h e e v e n t t h a t a n e q u i t a b l e r e s o l u t i o n of t h e
controversy i s n o t achieved, t h e D i s t r i c t Court s h a l l e n t e r
s u c h f u r t h e r o r d e r a s i s a p p r o p r i a t e t o a l l o w t h e amendment
of t h e c o m p l a i n t f o r wrongful d i s c h a r g e and p r o c e e d t o
t r i a l of t h e c a s e . I
d
W e Concur:
Chief . , J u s t i c e