Employment: Termination of Employment: Generally


Spencer v. Zurich American Ins. Co., [10/21/14] 2014 MTWCC 20 An employee who was terminated for being “not a fit for culture, property, department,” was not necessarily terminated for “disciplinary reasons” so as to preclude his eligibility for TTD benefits under § 39-71-701(4), MCA. 

Chapman v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co. [11/05/10] 2010 MTWCC 30 Where Petitioner was terminated from her employment for performance issues including insubordination and disregard for company policies or procedures, she has not demonstrated that her termination was related to her industrial injury.

Pugh v. Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co. [01/12/10] 2010 MTWCC 1 The Montana Supreme Court has held that the occurrence of a constructive discharge is “usually a question of fact determined by the totality of the circumstances.” Although Petitioner disagreed with a letter the company president wrote criticizing her job performance and imposing specific changes, the Court did not believe either the letter or the conditions imposed upon Petitioner in the letter motivated her resignation.  Therefore, the Court concluded that Petitioner was not constructively discharged and cannot avail herself of § 39-71-701(4),MCA.
Pugh v. Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co. [01/12/10] 2010 MTWCC 1 Where Petitioner put her house up for sale in October 2004 and sold it shortly thereafter, sent the sale proceeds to her daughter to invest in a house in Colorado Springs, shipped belongings to Colorado Springs, hired an assistant manager and informed him that the manager position would be available in the spring of 2005 because she planned to move to Colorado, the Court concluded that Petitioner’s tender of a letter of resignation following a critical performance review was a voluntary resignation from her employment and not a constructive discharge.

Bagley v. Montana State Fund [08/18/09] 2009 MTWCC 29 The Court concluded that Petitioner was terminated from his employment for disciplinary reasons where the facts demonstrated that he refused to work the hours to which he had been released and failed to report to work, and the Court further found that the employer diligently attempted to accommodate Petitioner’s difficulties.