MILLER v CITIZENS STATE BANK

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 92-007 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1992 APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, In and for the County of Ravalli, The Honorable Jack L. Green, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Julio K. Morales; Morales Law Office, Missoula, Montana. For Respondent: John 0. Mudd; Garlington, Lohn Missoula, Montana. & Robinson, Submitted on Briefs: April 2 , 1992 Decided: May 7, 1 9 9 2 Filed: Clerk Justice Fred J. Weber delivered the Opinion of the Court. Plaintiff, Yvonne Miller, brought a wrongful discharge action against her employer, Citizens State Bank (Bank), in the Fourth Judicial District Court, Ravalli County, Montana. entered judgment in favor of the Bank. The court Ms. Miller appeals. We affirm. The issues for review are restated as follows: 1. Did the Bank terminate Ms. Miller for good cause as required by 2. § 39-2-904(2), MCA? Did the Bank comply with § 39-2-904(3), MCA, by following the express provisions of its personnel policy when it terminated Ms. Miller? The District Court made the following findings. became a fufl time employee of the Bank in 1956. Ms. Miller In 1989, Ms. Miller was involuntarily terminated from her position as operations officer. Ms. Miller had held the position of operations officer for ten years prior to her discharge. president of the Bank U. C. Hollingsworth, from 1937 through 1987, testified by deposition that plaintiff was a good and enthusiastic worker. Earle Wright, plaintiff's supervisor prior to 2987, testified that during his tenure, the Bank had no cause to terminate Ms. Miller. In 1987, the Bank hired Samuel R. Noel, who later assumed the position of bank president. Mr. Noel implemented changes designed to facilitate demands from regulatory agencies and accommodate changes in the economic climate. The court found Ms. Miller was aware of the requirements of her position, yet she failed to perform important tasks or did not complete tasks in a timely manner. The court noted that Mr. Noel was a difficult supervisor. However, it also found Ms. Miller "bucked the systemw thus straining the working relationship between herself and Mr. Noel. The District Court found that in addition to a below standard written performance appraisal, on at least three occasions Mr. Noel warned Ms. Miller of performance improved. potential termination unless her job Despite these warnings and indicators, Ms. Miller delayed completing tasks and resisted changes implemented by Mr. Noel. As a result, Ms. Miller was terminated. The District Court found the Bank followed the express written provisions of its personnel policies in terminating Ms. Miller. It further concluded the Bank did not wrongfully discharge Ms. Miller. Plaintiff appeals this judgment, arguing she was wrongfully terminated under § 39-2-904, MCA, which prohibits employers from discharging employees without cause and in violation of the employer's written personnel policies. I Did the Bank terminate Ms. Miller for good cause as required by 5 39-2-904 (2), MCA? Ms. Miller contends she was wrongfully discharged because the Bank terminated her without good cause. Plaintiff encourages this Court to adopt a new standard of "good causeu based upon whether the employee satisfied the general obligations of an employee described in !j whether the employer followed 39-2-401, MCA, industry standards of progressive discipline, and whether the defendant exercised bad faith. 3 Y In light of the statutory definition adopted by the legislature, we conclude that it is inappropriate to apply the standard advanced by Ms. Miller. part: Section 39-2-904, MCA, states in I1Adischarge is wrongful only if not for good cause cause as: .. .I1 .. . (2) the discharge was Section 39-2-903(5), MCA, defines good flreasonable job-related grounds for dismissal based on a failure to satisfactorily perform job duties, disruption of the employer's operation, or other legitimate business reason.I1 Based on its extensive findings, including those that Ms. Miller failed to implement new procedures and delayed completing tasks, the District Court concluded plaintiff was terminated for failure to satisfactorily perform her job duties. Thus, it held Ms. Miller was terminated for good cause based on reasonable jobrelated grounds as defined by § 39-2-903(5), MCA, Under Rule 52 (a), M.R. Civ. P., the District Court Is findings of fact will not be disturbed on appeal unless they are clearly erroneous. Trad Indus. Ltd. v. Brogan (1991), 246 Mont. 439, 447, 805 P.2d 54, 59. Here, Ms. Miller failed to show the lower court's findings were clearly erroneous. Accordingly, we conclude Ms. Miller's termination was based on reasonable job related grounds. We hold the Bank terminated Ms. Miller for good cause as required by 5 39-2-904(2), MCA. I1 Did the Bank comply with 3 39-2-904(3), MCA by following the express provisions of its personnel policy when it terminated Ms. Miller? Ms. Miller contends the Bank failed to provide her with a . , formal warning; thus, she was terminated in violation of the Bank's personnel policy. section 39-2-904 (3), MCA, states in part: "A discharge is wrongful only if ... (3) the employer violated the express provisions of its own written personnel policy." Here the District Court specifically found that Mr. Noel warned Ms. Miller that her dismissal. continued substandard It further found that performance would result in the Bank followed the express written provisions of its personnel policies when it terminated Ms. Miller. As previously stated, the standard of review for the lower court's findings of fact, in a civil action, is whether or not the findings are clearly erroneous. 447, 805 P.2d at 59. Trad Indus. Ltd., 246 Mont. at In reviewing the record, we conclude that Ms. Miller failed to prove these findings were clearly erroneous. We hold the Bank complied with g 39-2-904(3), MCA, and followed the provisions of its personnel policy when it terminated Ms. Miller. Affirmed. We Concur: May 7, 1992 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the following order was sent by United States mail, prepaid, to the following named: Julio K. Morales MORALES LAW OFFICE P.O. Box 9311 Missoula. MT 59807 John 0. Mudd GARLINGTON, LOHN & ROBINSON P.O. Box 7909 Missoula, MT 59807 ED SMITH CLERK O F THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF MONTANA

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.