Unconditional offer to reinstate employee prevents wrongful discharge claim

I often receive calls from employers that say they just met with an employee to talk about job performance, the session didn’t go well, and now the company has received a bizarre communication from the individual and doesn’t know how to proceed. After I’ve read the message and talked with the employer, it becomes clear (at least to me) the parties have completely different views of what transpired during the meeting, and no one truly understands the employee’s status. A recent Montana Supreme Court case reminds employers that an unconditional offer to reinstate an employee often reduces an employer’s legal liability.

Confusion arises

Daniel McCaul started working for Southwest Montana Community Federal Credit Union (FCU) in August 2016. In November 2017, the credit union’s CEO Tom Dedman met with him to review his position.

There’s no doubt the discussion was at least somewhat contentious: Dedman instructed McCaul to “justify [his] position with a cost-benefit analysis” because other employees “did not want [him] working there.”

Nevertheless, the parties left the meeting with very different impressions of what happened. McCaul contended Dedman had told him during the meeting that “he no longer had a job” at the credit union, while the CEO denied terminating him.