Opinion · Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Howard v. Dorr Woolen Co.
120 N.H. 295
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of New Hampshire
- Jurisdiction
- New Hampshire
- Date
- 1980-05-05
- Topic
- general
holding that although public policy prohibits discharge under some circumstances, discharge on the basis of sickness or age does not fall in that narrow category | rejecting Tameny -type claim based on statutory prohibition against age discrimination | proper, remedy for agel discrimination provided by statute, which specifically prohibits ag discrimination and details procedure for pursuing such action | wrongful discharge claim barred where "proper remedy for age discrimination is provided by [federal and state] statute." | arguably altering the nature of the action created from one in contract as in Monge v. Beebe Rubber Co., 114 N.H. 130, 316 A.2d 549 (1974) to one in tort | discharge for refusal to accede to sexual advances of supervisor violates public policy | discharge for refusal to accede to sexual advances of supervisor violates public policy | Wisconsin statutory law provides exclusive remedy for retaliatory discharge and age discrimination | New Hampshire statutory law and ADEA are exclusive remedies for age discrimination | in wrongful discharge case, administrator of deceased employee’s estate has no claim to insurance proceeds where decedent’s widow was beneficiary, and widow has no claim to benefits where policy was permitted to lapse | rejecting Tameny-type claim based on statutory prohibition against age discrimination | the proper remedy for unlawful age discrimination is provided for by statute | proper remedy for age discrimination is provided by statute | listing state and federal statutory remedies | listing state and federal statutory remedies
Citator
- Cited by
- 63 opinions
This appeal is a consolidation of three separate cases consisting of two interlocutory appeals and an appeal from the granting of a motion to dismiss by DiClerico, J. The principal issue is whether either the widow or the estate of the decedent is entitled to damages, including the value of a group term life insurance policy, for an alleged wrongful discharge by the defendant. We hold that neither is entitled to such damages, and dismiss the appeal.
According to the agreed statement of facts, Franklin C. Baldwin was employed by the defendant Dorr Woolen Company almost continuously from November 1952 to March 1975, at which time he was discharged for reasons of “economic necessity.” At the time of his discharge, Mr. Baldwin had vested retirement benefits under a company plan that he was not entitled to receive unless and until he reached the age of fifty-five. The defendant had also provided Mr. Baldwin with group term life insurance in the amount of $36,000, which he-was entitled to continue upon his discharge provided that he assume the premium payments. Mr. Baldwin was discharged at the age of fifty. He did not choose to keep the life insurance policy in effect because he allegedly could
Laura M. Baldwin, the widow of Franklin C. Baldwin, was the named beneficiary in the insurance policy at issue. She and Robert R. Howard, III, administrator of the estate of Mr. Baldwin, brought these actions for wrongful discharge by the defendant, principally claiming damages in the amount of the life insurance policy.
The first issue is whether the estate of Mr. Baldwin has pleaded sufficient facts to maintain an action against the defendant. The administrator alleges that the defendant discharged Mr. Baldwin because of his age, his suffering from a debilitating condition of angina, and for the purpose of denying him his accrued retirement benefits. He argues that such allegations constitute a discharge motivated by bad faith, malice, or retaliation, and warrant recovery for breach of contract under Monge v. Beebe Rubber Co., 114 N.H. 130, 316 A.2d 549 (1974).
It is evident that the defendant did not discharge Mr. Baldwin for the purpose of denying him his accrued retirement benefits, as it is admitted by both parties that such benefits vested at the time of his discharge, but that he was not entitled' to recéív'e them unless and until he reached the age of fifty-five. We therefore disregard this allegation.
We also find the administrator’s reliance upon Monge v. Beebe Rubber Co. supra for the proposition that a discharge due to age or sickness warrants recovery is misplaced. We construe Monge to apply only to a situation where an employee' is discharged because he performed an act that public policy would encourage, or refused to do that which public policy would condemn. See, e.g., Ness v. Hocks, 272 Ore. 210, 536 P.2d 512 (1975) (employee discharged for accepting jury duty); cf. Whirlpool Corp. v. Marshall, 100 S. Ct. 883 (1980). A discharge due to sickness does not fall within this category and is generally remedied by medical insurance or disability provisions in an employment contract. Nor does discharge because of age fall within this narrow category. The proper remedy for an action for unlawful age discrimination is provided for by statute. See RSA 354-A:8 I (Supp. 1979), :9; 29 U.S.C. §§ 623, 626 (1976),^ Accordingly, the administrator’s claim must fail on the basis of his pleadings. We note, however, that even if the claim did not fail, the administrator would have no claim to insurance proceeds under the decedent’s
The next issue is whether Laura M. Baldwin can maintain an action against the defendant. Any right of action she arguably had as a third party beneficiary under the employment contract between her deceased husband and the defendant is nullified by our narrow construction of Monge v. Beebe Rubber Co. supra. Furthermore, any right of action she may have had as a beneficiary under the insurance policy was lost when her husband chose to terminate it by not paying the premiums after his discharge. Accordingly, the present claim of Laura Baldwin against the defendant must also fail.
Plaintiffs’ appeals dismissed; defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted.
All concurred.