Matta v. Dakota Provisions

1

2024 S.D. 75

ANGEL MATTA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DAKOTA PROVISIONS, Defendant and Appellee.

No. 30478-SRJ

Supreme Court of South Dakota

December 11, 2024

CONSIDERED ON BRIEFS JUNE 4, 2024

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT BEADLE COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA THE HONORABLE KENT A. SHELTON Judge

TUCKER J. VOLESKY Mitchell, South Dakota Attorney for plaintiff and appellant.

REED RASMUSSEN of Siegel, Barnett & Schutz, L.L.P. Aberdeen South Dakota Attorneys for defendant and appellee.

OPINION

JENSEN, Chief Justice

[¶1.] Angel Matta was hired as a production worker by Dakota Provisions in February 2020. Throughout his short tenure Dakota Provisions documented concerns with Matta's work attendance. Matta was injured at work on March 23, 2020, which caused him to miss several weeks of work. Matta filed a workers' compensation claim due to his injuries and Dakota Provisions terminated Matta one month later. Matta filed suit alleging wrongful termination and that his termination violated public policy. Dakota Provisions moved for summary judgment on Matta's claims which the circuit court granted. Matta appeals the circuit court's entry of summary judgment. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

Factual and Procedural Background

[¶2.] Dakota Provisions is a meat production and processing business located in Huron. Matta began working for Dakota Provisions on February 17, 2020, and was provided several employment forms including an employee handbook (the Handbook) and an acknowledgment form which indicated that he had received and read the Handbook. The Handbook acknowledgment included a statement that Matta was "an 'at will' employee" and that the Handbook did not "constitute a contract between [Matta] and Dakota Provisions." The Handbook further explained that "Dakota Provisions is an at-will employer. Employees are free to terminate their employment at any time, for any reason, with or without notice and [Dakota Provisions] may terminate the employee's employment at any time, with or without cause and with or without notice."

[¶3.] The Handbook also included an explanation of the "No Fault Attendance Policy" (the Policy). The Policy outlined the importance of regular and punctual attendance for work and assessed "points" for different forms of attendance concerns, including a half point each time an employee reported late for work. The Policy also assessed points for missed work due to health-related issues, even when a doctor's excuse was provided:

If an employee has an illness lasting more than one workday and a Doctor's excuse is provided, the employee will only be charge [sic] with one point for consecutive days of illness; regardless of the duration. However, if an employee is absent for more than one consecutive day and does not provide a Doctor's excuse, a point will be assessed for each day absent. Failing to report for work and failing to call in [] counts as two (2) points; (NO CALL/NO SHOW) for three (3) consecutive days will result in immediate termination of employment.

[¶4.] The Policy provided that an employee would be automatically terminated upon the accumulation of ten points within one calendar year but clarified that "[t]he following attendance guidelines do not constitute a contract, expressed or implied and are not intended as limitations upon [Dakota Provisions'] judgment to expand, alter or to otherwise modify them as determined by the facts of each individual situation." In addition to the explanation of the Policy in the Handbook, Matta also received and signed a one-page summary of the Policy, and acknowledged that he had read and understood "the No Fault Attendance Policy as stated in the [Handbook]."

[¶5.] Approximately one month after Matta began working for Dakota Provisions, he was cited for "poor attendance during [his] probationary period" in a disciplinary action form dated March 15, 2020. Matta signed the form, acknowledging that it was his final warning and any future instance of late or missed work without excuse would result in termination.

[¶6.] On March 23, 2020, Matta slipped and fell on ice in Dakota Provisions' parking lot and suffered a fractured sacrum and coccyx. He immediately reported his injuries to Dakota Provisions and sought medical treatment. Dakota Provisions received a health care note on April 1 from Matta's care provider who recommended Matta not return to work for at least one week. During this time, Dakota Provisions assisted Matta with filing a workers' compensation claim, and he received workers' compensation benefits for the injuries he sustained from the fall and for the time he missed work. Matta was later medically cleared to work for five hours per day and returned to work under these conditions on April 13. Upon his return, Matta received a second written disciplinary action from Dakota Provisions on April 16 after he reported late for work on April 15.^[1]

[¶7.] By April 22, Matta was cleared by his medical provider to return to work full time but was directed to call if a full day of work was "too much". Matta reaggravated his injury while working on April 30 and sought medical treatment. He was given a doctor's note recommending only light work until they were able to receive Matta's MRI reports. The note further indicated that an appointment was being set up with an orthopedist. On May 1, Matta's health care provider wrote an additional note stating that Matta was "off work until [he could see an] orthopedic doctor . . . on May 6[.]"^[2] After meeting with the orthopedist, Matta was referred to a spine specialist and was ordered not to return to work until May 19. It is unclear whether this information was communicated to Dakota Provisions.

[¶8.] The personnel action form in Matta's personnel file shows that he was terminated on May 1, 2020, for "poor attendance during [his] probationary period." Matta claims he first learned of his termination approximately a week and a half later through a child support enforcement letter from the Department of Social Services (DSS). Upon receiving the DSS letter, Matta called Dakota Provisions who informed him that he was terminated because he had "missed some days" at work. Matta was informed that he would continue to receive workers' compensation benefits for the medical bills associated with his injuries but would no longer be receiving weekly disability payments.

[¶9.] Matta's attorney also reached out to Dakota Provisions and inquired about Matta's termination. Despite the earlier form indicating that Matta had been terminated on May 1, Dakota Provisions' human resources (HR) director responded to Matta's attorney with a letter dated May 30, 2020, and explained that Matta was terminated "because of attendance issues effective 5-6-20." In addition to the previously noted attendance concerns, the letter stated that on May 1, 4, and 5 "[Matta] did not come to work or call in. This constitutes grounds for termination as it is 3 days in a row-no call no show."

[¶10.] Matta filed this action against Dakota Provisions alleging he was wrongfully terminated in retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim in violation of SDCL 62-1-16. Matta subsequently amended his complaint by removing a reference to SDCL 62-1-16 and broadly alleging his termination "was in violation of the law and contrary to public policy."^[3]

[¶11.] Dakota Provisions filed a motion for summary judgment on May 5, 2023. In its brief in support of summary judgment, Dakota Provisions asserted that Matta was an at-will employee who could be terminated from employment "for virtually any reason." In his resistance, Matta argued that the Policy created an express or implied contract that limited Dakota Provisions' ability to terminate him before he had accumulated ten attendance points. Matta also argued that he was terminated against public policy on the basis of a disability or in retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim in violation of SDCL 62-1-16. Matta also filed a summary judgment motion arguing, as a matter of law, that he was wrongfully terminated by Dakota Provisions. In addition to his summary judgment motion, Matta also filed a motion to conduct discovery on punitive damages. Dakota Provisions filed a brief responding to each of the claims made by Matta in his resistance to summary judgment and in support of his own motion for summary judgment.

[¶12.] At the conclusion of the summary judgment hearing, the circuit court orally denied Matta's motion for summary judgment and granted Dakota Provisions' motion for summary judgment. Based upon this decision, the court declined to rule on Matta's motion for discovery on punitive damages. Matta appeals the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Dakota Provisions. He raises three issues, which we restate as follows:

1. Whether the Policy created an express or implied contract that Dakota Provisions violated by terminating Matta outside the procedures set forth in the Policy.

2. Whether Dakota Provisions violated public policy by terminating Matta because of his alleged disability.

3. Whether a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Matta was terminated in retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim in violation of SDCL 62-1-16.

Analysis and Decision

[¶13.] This Court reviews "a circuit court's entry of summary judgment under the de novo standard of review." Ries v. JM Custom Homes, LLC, 2022 S.D. 52, ¶ 14, 980 N.W.2d 217, 222 (quoting Wyman v. Bruckner 2018 S.D. 17, ¶ 9, 908 N.W.2d 170, 174). "We will affirm a circuit court's 'grant of a motion for summary judgment when no genuine issues of material fact exist, and the legal questions have been correctly decided.'" Id. (quoting Harvieux v Progressive...