Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y of the United States
Minnesota Supreme Court
389 N.W.2d 876 (1986)
The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States (the Company) hired Carole Lewis, Mary Smith, Michelle Rafferty, and Suzanne Loizeaux (plaintiffs) as dental-claim approvers. The plaintiffs worked in the St. Paul office for several months. The Company then dispatched the plaintiffs to its Pittsburgh office for two-week periods to provide assistance. The Company did not provide the plaintiffs with detailed instructions regarding expense reports for their travel. Instead, the plaintiffs were given a travel advance of $1,400 each, told of the Company’s daily allowances for meals and maid tips, and told to keep receipts for hotel bills and airfare. The plaintiffs each spent the travel advance in full. When the plaintiffs returned to St. Paul, the Company commended them on their job performance. However, the Company also informed them that they were required to submit expense reports detailing daily expenditures during the travel. The plaintiffs filled out the expense reports, but the Company required the plaintiffs to revise the reports twice. The plaintiffs complied, but the Company again directed the plaintiffs to revise the reports. The plaintiffs then refused to make further changes. The Company sent the plaintiffs each a letter with a completely different set of guidelines for expense reports and directed the plaintiffs to revise the reports. The plaintiffs refused. The Company terminated the plaintiffs for gross insubordination. The plaintiffs sought other employment, but prospective employers required the plaintiffs to disclose the reasons for leaving their previous positions. The plaintiffs disclosed that they had been terminated for gross insubordination and encountered difficulties in obtaining new jobs. The plaintiffs sued the Company for defamation. The jury awarded the plaintiffs compensatory and punitive damages, and the court of appeals affirmed the finding of liability. The Company petitioned the Minnesota Supreme Court for review.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Amdahl, C.J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 725,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 725,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,600 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.