Brenden v. City Of Billings

Facts

D twice employed P as an air rescue firefighter/airfield maintenance worker at the Billings Airport. Glancy was P's immediate supervisor during both periods of employment. A disagreement arose between P and Glancy about shift scheduling that resulted in P filing a grievance against Glancy with the City human resources director. After P filed the grievance, Glancy continually documented perceived workplace problems with P for nearly two years in an electronic log titled the 'Brenden Log.' Glancy maintained the log during work hours on his city-owned office computer at the airport. Glancy also maintained copies on his office computer of corrective action forms he issued to P, a negative annual performance review he issued to P, and P's rebuttal thereto. While still employed by D, P applied for a switchman trainee position with Montana Rail Link (MRL). The job application listed Glancy as his D supervisor. MRL called Glancy at his airport office for a reference check on P. Glancy confirmed P's city employment, gave him an unqualified 'positive reference,' and stated that P was a 'safe' employee. After MRL hired P, P's last day of work for D was Friday, November 4, 2016. MRL maintains a 'hotline' (EthicsPoint) as a means for employees and the public to submit anonymous complaints regarding MRL operations and employees. On Saturday, November 5, 2016, Glancy submitted an anonymous complaint on the EthicsPoint hotline falsely alleging that P had stolen D's property. D determined that Glancy accessed the MRL website from his city-owned office computer at the airport for ten minutes and three seconds on November 5, 2016. Glancy subsequently admitted that he accessed the MRL website from his airport office computer on November 5, 2016, but claimed that he did so only for the limited purpose of determining whether MRL had a website complaint hotline. He claimed that, after confirming that it did, he later submitted his anonymous hotline complaint from his personal computer at home. On that day, Glancy was on a paid, on-call duty status with D. On the hotline complaint form, stated that: Tad was previously employed with tD. Upon the receipt of his two-week notice, he was instructed to return all airport/city-issued items on his last day. Tad did not return uniform badges (2) valued at $200. On November 9, 2016, MRL human resources officer Susan Twiford (Twiford) telephoned Glancy and inquired about the anonymous allegation. MRL called Glancy based on its prior knowledge that he was Brenden's city supervisor, had previously responded to MRL's initial reference check inquiry, and was thus the person who could best confirm or refute the truth of the allegation. During the call, Glancy told Twiford, that P had indeed stolen city property, was also involved in a violent incident in the workplace, had created a hostile working environment at the airport, and that he was 'an HR nightmare.' Glancy further stated that he had 'tons of documentation that you're welcome to' and that 'I'll send . . . to you.' Glancy subsequently sent two emails to MRL with copies of various employment records attached, including corrective action directives issued to P, a negative annual performance evaluation, and Glancy's 'Brenden Log.' Glancy sent the email and attachments during the work day from his airport office using his city email account. The transmittal emails included a signature line identifying Glancy as D's 'Airport Operations Supervisor.' On November 10, 2016, based on that information MRL terminated P's employment on his second day on the job. Two weeks later, Glancy sent Twiford an email stating that he had heard that their 'mutual acquaintance had moved on' and that he hoped that the previously 'shared items [would] find the shredder or vault.' In April 2017, Glancy sent another email to Twiford asking her to notify him if MRL received 'any inquiries' regarding P. After learning of Glancy's post-employment communications with MRL regarding P, D terminated Glancy on June 22, 2017, on the ground that those communications violated D policy. P sued D asserting claims for tortious interference with business relations and negligent misrepresentation. On May 30, 2018, P asserted two additional claims-defamation and breach of the Montana constitutional right to privacy. P claimed that D was vicariously liable for Glancy's tortious conduct under the common law doctrine of respondeat superior. D filed a motion for summary judgment claiming Glancy engaged in the alleged tortious conduct outside the scope of his employment. The District Court granted D summary judgment. The court held that D did not authorize Glancy to disclose P's personnel information and records to MRL and that the disclosures 'did not 'grow out of'' his earlier response, within the scope of his employment, to MRL's initial reference check. The court noted that Glancy's tortious conduct was of no benefit to D after P resigned. P appealed.

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2025 ABN Study Partner.