Mackay v. Four Rivers Packing Co.

145 Idaho 408 (2008)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D hired P as a field man during the summer of 1999 to secure onion contracts from growers in the area. Four Rivers began experiencing financial difficulties in late 1999. All employees, including P, were laid off at this time because one of the owners of Four Rivers filed suit to prevent the company from conducting business. When the lawsuit was resolved, D rehired P as a field man. According to P, D offered him a long-term employment contract in March of 2000 to continue working as a field man up to the time of his retirement. P accepted the long-term offer of employment and advised D that he may not retire for approximately ten years, at around age 62. D denied making such an offer. In 2001, P asked for a written contract of employment. P refused to sign the agreement that was prepared because it gave D the right to terminate his employment at will. In 2000, P was diagnosed with Type II diabetes and began taking oral medication to treat the condition. In early 2003, P became insulin dependent due to the diabetes. He notified D of this dependency and the possible side effects. On March 7, 2003, D terminated the employment relationship without notice. P claims it was from his illness. D claims that P was not meeting with growers with the frequency or regularity necessary to obtain the quantity of onions necessary to keep Ds' packing plant operational on a full-time basis, resulting in the closure of the packing plant in February 2003. P claims D closed due to the price of onions at the time. D offered to rehire P in a different position later that year, and D declined. P sued for breach of his employment contract and discrimination for his illness. D claimed P was an 'at will' employee and the claimed contract was null, void, and unenforceable because the agreement could not be performed within one year of its making. D moved for summary judgment, and it was granted. P appealed.