Justia Idaho Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Joseph Talbot worked at Desert View Care Center as a nurse and was discharged due to a Facebook post that Desert View found violated its Social and Electronic Media Conduct Policy. Talbot applied for unemployment benefits, and an Idaho Department of Labor Appeals Examiner awarded him benefits. The Idaho Industrial Commission reversed, concluding that Talbot engaged in employment-related misconduct. Talbot appealed, arguing that Desert View never communicated its Social Media Policy to him. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the Industrial Commission's decision. View "Talbot v. Desert View Care Center" on Justia Law

Internet Auto Rent & Sales, Inc., an automobile dealership, hired Tina Venable as an Internet Manager in 2011. Venable stated that after she began working for Internet Auto, she observed violations of the Idaho Consumer Protection Act (ICPA) and the federal Truth in Lending Act. Venable said she reported her concerns to the General Sales Manager and other members of the management team but was first told that she should mind my own business and was later told that "this is how ‘we do business’ and to get on board or words to that affect." Venable claimed that “[s]hortly after reporting the deceptive acts and practices to [the General Sales Manager],” she “discovered” that her “access to key programs used by the dealership had been denied which made it more difficult” for her “to complete sales transactions on behalf of Internet Auto.” A little over a month after hiring Venable, Internet Auto discharged her. After her termination, Venable filed a complaint against Internet Auto alleging breach of contract claims, wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. She later filed an amended complaint to additionally allege slander. Internet Auto was granted summary judgment on all of Venable’s claims except for slander and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Venable filed a motion for reconsideration of the wrongful discharge claim, which was denied. At trial, the jury found for Internet Auto on both of her remaining claims. Following the jury verdict, Venable filed a second motion for reconsideration of the wrongful discharge claim, which was denied. Venable timely appealed. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Internet Auto. View "Venable v. Internet Auto" on Justia Law

Claimant DeAnne Muchow began working for Varsity Contractors in, 2011 as a human resources assistant. During her employment, she had an ongoing conflict with her supervisor and had lodged several complaints about her supervisor. The director decided to have a meeting with claimant and her supervisor in an effort to resolve the conflict. During the meeting, the claimant and her supervisor both stated that they had documentation outlining their complaints. The director told them to get their documentation and bring it back to his office. Claimant asked for time to better prepare her papers, but the director denied that request because he was leaving the next day on a business trip. He did give claimant a few minutes to look over her papers. She returned to her desk and after a few minutes printed her documents. She took the documents and walked toward the director, who was standing outside his office. The claimant waved the documents in the air, told the director she had them and was going to shred them, and walked past him toward the shredder. He told her not to shred them, but she continued to the shredder and shredded them. The director then discharged her for insubordination. Claimant applied for unemployment benefits, which were initially denied. She appealed, an appeals examiner held an evidentiary hearing by telephone. He later issued findings of fact and conclusions of law and reversed the ruling that claimant was not entitled to unemployment benefits. He held that as a matter of law there was no insubordination. The basis of his ruling was that the director’s order not to shred the documents was not a directive that the director was authorized to give and entitled to have obeyed, because the documents belonged to claimant and contained her personal notations about issues and problems she was having with a coworker. The employer then appealed to the Industrial Commission. The commission adopted the findings of fact made by the appeals examiner. However, the commission disagreed with the conclusions of law made by the appeals examiner: the held that the director requested the documents because they pertained to a conflict between two employees that he was attempting to resolve; that he had a reasonable expectation that his order not to shred the documents would be obeyed; and that the claimant chose to disregard the director’s order and shredded the documents. The commission concluded that her conduct constituted employment-related misconduct, and it reversed the decision of the appeals examiner and held that the claimant was not eligible for unemployment benefits. Claimant then appealed to the Supreme Court. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the Commission. View "Muchow v. Varsity Contractors, Inc" on Justia Law

The Board of Trustees of the Mountain Home School District No. 193 appealed the district court’s denial of the its request for attorney fees. This case arose when School District employee Terri Sanders claimed that the Board breached its contract with her by hiring a candidate less qualified than her for a teaching position that Sanders had also applied for. After a jury found the Board did not breach its contract, the district court held the Board was not entitled to attorney fees because Sanders presented a legitimate issue for trial. The court also held that because I.C. 12-117 was the exclusive source of attorney fees for a school district, I.C. 12-120(3) could not apply. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that attorney fees under I.C. 12-117 were not exclusive. Because fees were available under I.C. 12-120(3), the Court remanded the case for the district court to enter the appropriate award of attorney fees under that statute. The Court also vacated the district court’s award of arbitration costs to the Board. Neither party received attorney fees on appeal. View "Sanders v. Bd of Trustees - Mt. Home School Dist 193" on Justia Law

In September 2010, Corral Agriculture, Inc. (Corral) contracted with Williamson Orchards to provide laborers to pick apples. Marco Fonseca worked as a laborer for Corral as a member of Coronado’s crew at Williamson Orchards. Fonseca's workers' compensation complaint stems from an injury he claims to have suffered while working. He was picking apples near the top of a ten or fifteen foot ladder when the ladder broke, causing him to fall to the ground and resulting in an injury to his hip and back. Fonseca testified that he reported his fall and his hip and back pain to Dr. Partridge on both visits but the medical records contain no notes regarding the fall or complaints of hip or back pain. The Industrial Commission denied Fonseca workers' compensation benefits after concluding he failed to prove he suffered an accident. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the Commission's decision. View "Fonseca v. Corral Ag, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2006, claimant William Waters was working as a drywall hanger and taper. He was injured on a jobsite and sought medical care from a chiropractor. When chiropractic did not resolve his pain, he was recommended for surgery. The surgeon released Claimant to return to light work with a 45-pound lifting restriction. In 2007, the surgeon concluded that Claimant had reached medical stability, and he released Claimant to full activities, restricting him only from impact loading with axial activities, such as diving and gymnastics. Claimant returned to drywall work, but was laid off due to his difficulty keeping up. He applied for jobs at a convenience store and at rental car agencies, but was not hired. Later that year, Claimant sustained a whiplash injury to his neck in a rear-end motor vehicle accident, for which he sought and received emergency medical care. During the first part of 2008, he tripped and fell while running, sustaining an injury to his right shoulder for which he also sought and received emergency medical care. Claimant returned for treatment of right shoulder pain. After examining Claimant and conducting further testing, the doctor determined that Claimant had shoulder weakness from a nerve injury likely due to the industrial accident. Whether and to what extent Claimant was entitled to permanent partial disability benefits was tried to a referee. Claimant relied upon the testimony of two experts: his examining doctor and a vocational rehabilitation consultant. The central issue was whether the medical conditions identified by the doctor after the car accident were caused by the industrial accident. The referee concluded that Claimant had failed to prove that they were. The referee recommended that Claimant had failed to prove any permanent partial disability in excess of a 12% permanent partial impairment, which the State Insurance Fund (Surety) had already paid. The Commission adopted the referee’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law as its own. Claimant then timely appealed. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the Industrial Commission. View "Waters v. All Phase Const." on Justia Law

The Idaho Department of Labor determined that Western Home Transport, Inc. owed unemployment insurance taxes and penalties because the owners/operators who hauled goods interstate for Western were engaged in covered employment under Idaho’s Employment Security Law. Western now appealed that determination. Finding that the commission erred in its calculation of the taxes owed, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Western Home Transport v. Dept of Labor" on Justia Law

In 2009, plaintiff Craig Mulford filed a complaint against his employer Union Pacific Railroad (UP) seeking relief under the Federal Employer’s Liability Act (FELA). Plaintiff alleged he sustained injury to his knees as a result of UP's negligence. The case went to trial in 2012. The jury reached its verdict, unanimously concluding that UP was not negligent. The district court issued its final judgment and dismissed plaintiff's claims. In this appeal, plaintiff claimed that the district court erred on two separate grounds: (1) failing to disqualify a juror for cause; and (2) admitting evidence that he received disability benefits from the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) to impeach statements made by plaintiff on direct examination. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Mulford v. Union Pacific Railroad" on Justia Law

This appeal stemmed from a worker’s compensation case in which Michael Vawter sought compensation from his employer, United Parcel Service (UPS), for a back injury he claimed he suffered as a result of his employment. UPS attempted to establish that Vawter did not suffer a compensable injury, but if he did the State's Industrial Special Indemnity Fund (ISIF) was liable for a portion of his benefits. Ultimately, the Idaho Industrial Commission found that Vawter was totally and permanently disabled and that UPS was solely responsible for Vawter’s disability benefits because it was estopped from arguing Vawter had a preexisting condition, a necessary element of ISIF liability. UPS appealed, arguing: (1) the accident causing Vawter’s injury did not arise out of his employment; (2) the Commission improperly applied the doctrine of quasi-estoppel to prevent it from asserting a preexisting condition; and (3) the Commission improperly awarded Vawter attorney fees. Vawter and ISIF both cross-appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed the Industrial Commission’s determination that Vawter was not entitled to recover all medical expenses incurred between the date of the accident and September 27, 2010. The Court affirmed the Industrial Commission in all other respects. View "Vawter v. United Parcel Service, Inc." on Justia Law

In 1999, Rick and Natalie Foeller entered into an agreement with Melaleuca of Canada, Inc., under which the Foellers would serve as independent marketing executives in exchange for monthly commission payments. In 2008, the Foellers breached this agreement but Melaleuca continued to pay them commissions because it was unaware of the breach. Upon learning of the breach, Melaleuca sued to recover the payments it had made to the Foellers after they breached. The district court granted Melaleuca’s motion for summary judgment, finding that under the forfeiture clause of its agreement with the Foellers, Melaleuca was simply excused from performing once the Foellers breached and ordered the Foellers to refund Melaleuca the commissions they received after their breach. The Foellers appealed, arguing that the district court erred because the forfeiture clause was an illegal penalty and Melaleuca was required to prove damages. Agreeing with the Foellers, the Supreme Court vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Melaleuca, Inc v. Foeller" on Justia Law