Wagenseller v. Scottsdale Memorial Hospital
Arizona Supreme Court
710 P.2d 1025 (1985)
- Written by Megan Petersen, JD
Facts
Catherine Wagenseller (plaintiff) was employed as a nurse by Scottsdale Memorial Hospital (hospital) (defendant). Wagenseller’s contract provided that she was an at-will employee. She was directly supervised by Kay Smith (defendant). Wagenseller and Smith worked together amicably for approximately four years. During this time, Wagenseller received favorable performance reviews. In 1979, both Wagenseller and Smith attended an eight-day camping and rafting trip for hospital personnel. During this time, Smith allegedly engaged in heavy drinking and lewd, inappropriate behavior. Wagenseller refused to participate. After the trip, Wagenseller noted that her relationship with Kay deteriorated. She began receiving poor performance reviews, and was eventually terminated from her position. Wagenseller believed her refusal to participate in the camping activities with Smith was the proximate cause of her termination. Wagenseller brought suit against the hospital and Smith for wrongful termination on the ground that she was fired for reasons going against public policy and having nothing to do with her job performance. The trial court ruled in favor of the hospital. The appellate court affirmed, holding only that Wagenseller still had grounds for an action against Smith. Wagenseller appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Feldman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 777,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 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.
