 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Winslow v. Montana Rail Link11/27/2000
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the First Judicial District, In and for the County of Lewis and Clark, The Honorable Thomas Honzel, Judge presiding.
Submitted on Briefs: June 1, 2000
Gary Winslow (Winslow) appeals from the First Judicial District Court's Memorandum and Order dismissing Counts I, II and III of Winslow's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and granting summary judgment to Montana Rail Link (MRL) on Count IV seeking punitive damages. Winslow also appeals the District Court's denial of his motion to amend his complaint and asks this Court to rule on an unresolved discovery issue. We reverse in part, affirm in part, and remand for further proceedings.
Background
Winslow began working for MRL in 1987. Prior to working for MRL, he was employed by the Milwaukee Railroad from 1965 to 1976. His employment with MRL was subject to a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between his union, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and MRL. The CBA contains provisions relating to discipline and establishes an appeals and hearing process requiring that an employee such as Winslow cannot be dismissed without just cause and without a fair and impartial fact-finding session.
In the fall of 1995, while performing job related duties for MRL, Winslow felt a sudden pain in his groin. He filled out a personal injury form explaining that he had pulled a muscle in his groin. He saw a doctor who suggested surgery. Winslow reported to MRL that his doctor felt this was a hernia and that it required surgery. Winslow underwent surgery in September of 1995 and subsequently returned to work on light duty. On December 20, 1995 he received a written order from MRL to attend a disciplinary hearing to address his "fail to provide factual information regarding injury." Specifically, MRL's accusation was that since Winslow had failed to report that he had a hernia three years earlier, his claim was fraudulent. The disciplinary hearing was held and the Special Board of Adjustment (Board) found that Winslow's hernia was a pre-existing injury, unrelated to his employment with MRL. The Board concluded that " had the right to terminate [Winslow] for his obvious dishonesty," and Winslow was terminated.
Winslow did not appeal the Board's decision to federal court. Rather, he filed a claim in state court alleging that he lost his job due to MRL's mismanagement and misconduct. He also requested damages for infliction of mental distress and for punitive damages. MRL moved to dismiss Winslow's claims for Mismanagement, Violation of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Common Law Wrongful Discharge, and Emotional Distress for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and moved for summary judgment as to Punitive Damages. The District Court granted the motions to dismiss and for summary judgment.
Issues
We restate the issues on appeal as follows:
1. Did the District Court err in dismissing the claim for negligent mismanagement for lack of subject matter jurisdiction?
2. Did the District Court err in dismissing the claim for Violation of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing?
3. Did the District Court err in dismissing the Common Law Claim for Wrongful Discharge?
4. Did the District Court err in dismissing the claim for Emotional Distress?
5. Did the District Court err in granting summary judgment on Punitive Damages?
6. Did the District Court abuse its discretion in denying Winslow's motion to amend his complaint?
7. Should this Court resolve a discovery dispute which was not addressed by the
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Montana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|