SC0VT affirms summary judgment dismissing FEPA, contract and promissory estoppel claims by employee fired for lying, holding FEPA protections apply only to governmental investigations, that handbook by its terms did not create a contract, and that employee did not have evidence of a “specific” promise needed to support promissory estoppel claim.

 

Westcott v. Mack Molding, Co. , 2024 VT 85 [12/20/2024]

WAPLES, J.   Employee Paul Westcott surreptitiously recorded conversations at work and employer Mack Molding Co., Inc. fired him for lying about it.  Employee sued employer.  The trial court concluded at summary judgment that employee’s recording activities were not protected by Vermont’s Fair Employment Practices Act (FEPA) or Worker’s Compensation Act (WCA).  The trial court further concluded that employee could not sustain his breach-of-contract or promissory-estoppel claims.  We affirm.

 

FEPA and WCA Retaliation Claims

 

Employee does not dispute that employer terminated him for lying.  However, he contends that lying in support of a protected activity is itself protected activity. 

Assuming arguendo that being fired for lying about a protected activity would make the firing improper, we first consider whether his covert recording of workplace conversations is protected by the FEPA or the WCA, which incorporates by reference the provisions against retaliation under the FEPA.  21 V.S.A. § 710(f)

 

 The FEPA provides, in relevant part: “An employer . . . shall not discharge . . . any employee because the employee: . . .  (b) has lodged a complaint or has testified, assisted, or participated in any manner with the Attorney General, a State’s Attorney, the Department of Labor, or the Human Rights Commission in an investigation of prohibited acts or practices;   (c) is known by the employer to be about to . . . testify, assist, or participate in any manner in an investigation of prohibited acts or practices.}21 VSA § 495(a)(8).

 

Employee points us to a dictionary definition of the word “investigation” and argues that employee’s actions fall into it.  Employer instead argues that “investigation” means an investigation by the “Attorney General, a State’s Attorney, the Department of Labor, or the Human Rights Commission,” as specified in 21 VSA § 495(a)(8)(B). 

 

We think employer’s interpretation is correct. The Legislature intended the “investigation” referred to in subdivision (c) to mean the sort of investigation it defines immediately beforehand.  Because employee does not contend that his actions were in any way related to a government investigation as described in subdivision (b), his covert recording does not fall within the scope of the FEPA’s participation clause.

Similarly, employee’s actions do not fall within the scope of the WCA’s protections against retaliation. 21 V.S.A. § 710(d).

 

Breach of Contract

  Employee contends that employer breached a contract with him, created by the employee handbook 

 

Within the disciplinary process section, the handbook expressly provides that employees “should not assume that any or all of the steps outlined below will be followed in every situation” and that the stated “process does not create a binding obligation to follow these steps in every situation.” 

 

 The situation created by the handbook here is not like that of Dillon v. Champion Jogbra, Inc., 175 Vt. 1, ¶ 15, where despite an “at will” disclaimer, the disciplinary policy “require[d] management” to follow certain steps in the process -- a “promise for . . . specific treatment in a specific situation” because here the handbook stated that “the Company expressly reserves the right to terminate the employment relationship at will” and the handbook did not make any promises modifying that status.

 

Promissory Estoppel   

 

Employee argues that he “had a legitimate expectation that he would be permitted to return to work” after his period of short-term disability because of statements made by, the human resources directo in a letter explaining his disability benefits, providing: “[i]f you . . . recover after you have used 12 weeks of FMLA but before the maximum benefit (time away from work) of twenty-six (26) weeks is exhausted, you will still be considered” an employee and will “be reinstated to the first available position for which you are qualified.”

To sustain a promissory estoppel claim, employee must “[1] demonstrate that the termination was in breach of a specific promise made by the employer, [2] that the employer should have reasonably expected to induce detrimental reliance on the part of the employee, and [3] that the employee did in fact detrimentally rely on the promise.”  Dillon v. Champion Jogbra, Inc., 175 Vt. 1, ¶ 19 (2002). 

 

Even if we viewed this statement as a promise, employee’s termination was not “in breach of a specific promise made by the employer”.  Employee was merely promised that he would be able to return to “the first available position” not that the employer would refrain from terminating his employment for any other reasons.

Affirmed.

 How cited

SCOVT affirms summary judgment dismissing FEPA and promissory estoppel claims for lack of evidence, refusing to consider any supporting facts not presented by plaintiff in a required Rule 56 “statement of additional facts”.

 Caldwell v.Champlain College Inc., 2025 VT 17 [4/11/2025]

WAPLES, J.   Employee Robert Caldwell contends that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on his Fair Employment Practices Act (FEPA) disability discrimination and promissory-estoppel claims against his former employer Champlain College because genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment.  We affirm. 

In opposing Champlain’s motion for summary judgment, employee did not file his own statement of additional material facts.  A separate statement of material facts has been required by Rule 56 since at least 1995, and amendments to the rule in 2003 made clear that attorneys must include “in their Rule 56(c)(2) statements all of the facts that they have relied on ... [because] facts that are omitted from their statements will not be considered by the court in ruling on the motion.” Reporter's Notes—2003 Amendment, V.R.C.P. 56; see also Reporter's Notes—1995 Amendment, V.R.C.P. 56. The 2022 Amendments also explicitly clarify that “statements of additional facts ... are to be submitted in a separate statement, with numbered paragraphs.” Reporter's Notes—2022 Amendment, V.R.C.P. 56.

 

Employee’s failure to file a statement of additional material facts means the Court need not consider any facts outside of Champlain’s statement of undisputed material facts in ruling on the summary judgment motion.  V.R.C.P. 56(c)(5). Unless otherwise noted, all facts presented in the analysis below are facts that employee did not dispute in his response to Champlain’s statement of undisputed material facts.

 

Without direct evidence of unlawful discrimination, which employee has not offered, we apply the three-step framework adopted by the United States Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).  Hammond, 2023 VT 31, ¶ 25. Assuming that employee can establish a prima facie case of discrimination, the burden shifts to Champlain to articulate a “legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the challenged conduct.”  Hammond, 2023 VT 31, ¶ 25 (quotation omitted).  Champlain’s explanation that employee was being fired “based on [his] fundraising number.”  suffices to meet Champlain’s burden. Employee thus must show that the “proffered reason was a mere pretext for discrimination.”  Id

 

Employee offered no evidence to raise even the barest suggestion that Champlain’s decision to terminate him was not for exactly the reasons it stated: employee, who was chief fundraiser, failed to meet his fundraising expectations.  Summary judgment was warranted because employee bore the burden of proof to show that Champlain’s reason for termination was pretextual, and he failed to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of this element essential to  his case.

 

To establish his promissory estoppel claim, employee must “demonstrate that the termination was in breach of a specific promise made by the employer that the employer should have reasonably expected to induce detrimental reliance on the part of the employee, and that the employee did in fact detrimentally rely on the promise.”  Dillon v. Champion Jogbra, Inc.175 Vt. 1, 9, (2002).  “ ‘Courts have generally required a promise of a specific and definite nature before holding an employer bound by it.’ ”  Pettersen v. Monaghan Safar Ducham PLLC, 2021 VT 16, ¶ 13, 214 Vt. 269, 256 A.3d 604 (quoting Dillon, 175 Vt. at 10, 819 A.2d at 710).  A mere “ ‘expression of intention, hope, desire, or opinion, which shows no real commitment’ ” does not suffice.  Id. (quoting Nelson v. Town of St. Johnsbury Selectboard, 2015 VT 5, ¶ 56, 198 Vt. 277, 115 A.3d 423).  ¶ 27. Employee cites no evidence at all in support of his promissory estoppel claim.  His brief in opposition to summary judgment before the trial court similarly cited no evidence.  Because employee did not introduce evidence of any promise, much less one “of a specific and definite nature,” his claim for promissory estoppel fails.

Affirmed.

How cited

As a matter of first impression SCOVT recognizes tort of intentional interference with expectation of inheritance, but a Divided Court holds the claims in this case of IIEI, constructive fraud and unjust enrichment involve trust administration within the exclusive jurisdiction of probate.

 Dewdney v. Duncan, 2025 VT 26 [5/23/2025]

COHEN, J.   Plaintiffs Berol and Cordelia Dewdney appeal the civil division’s decision granting summary judgment to defendant Ralph Duncan, IV on plaintiffs’ claims for intentional interference with expectation of inheritance (IIEI), breach of contract, promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment, and constructive fraud.  We affirm.

In October 2011, Anna created a revocable inter vivos trust to receive the royalty income from her books.  Anna designated plaintiffs and defendant as beneficiaries of the trust with 40% of the income assigned to each plaintiff and 20% assigned to defendant.  At the same time, defendant executed his last will and testament in which he designated plaintiffs as his sole heirs if Anna predeceased defendant. Thereafter, Anna amended the trust and changed the distribution of the trust income to 25% for each plaintiff and 50% to defendant.  Plaintiff’s complaint in the civil division sought the creation of a constructive trust entitling them to all distributions exceeding defendant’s original 20% share and restitution of any amounts previously distributed to defendant that exceeded 20%.

 

The trial court ruled that IIEI was a cognizable cause of action in Vermont but that plaintiffs were required to first seek a remedy in the probate division.  The court determined that plaintiffs failed to establish their remaining claims

 

 Intentional Interference with Expectation of Inheritance

 

The Third Restatement, states that a defendant is liable for IIEI when: (a) the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of receiving an inheritance or gift;  (b) the defendant committed an intentional and independent legal wrong;  (c) the defendant’s purpose was to interfere with the plaintiff’s expectancy;  (d) the defendant’s conduct caused the expectancy to fail; and (e) the plaintiff suffered economic loss as a result. Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liab. for Econ. Harm § 19(1) (2020).  The Third Restatement, however, also provides that an IIEI claim “is not available to a plaintiff who had the right to seek a remedy for the same claim in a probate court,”  Id. § 19(2) (the probate exhaustion rule.)

 

While we have not previously recognized the tort of IIEI, we conclude that the Third Restatement definition of IIEI, with its probate exhaustion requirement, is the appropriate definition to adopt.

 

Plaintiffs argue that the Third Restatement and cases from other jurisdictions distinguish between wills and inter vivos trusts for purposes of the probate-exhaustion rule.

 

Under Vermont law, the probate division is vested with exclusive jurisdiction over claims brought by a trustee or beneficiary concerning trust administration.  14A V.S.A. § 203(a)(“ The Probate Division of the Superior Court has exclusive jurisdiction of proceedings in this State brought by a trustee or beneficiary concerning the administration of a trust”); 4 V.S.A. § 35 (“The Probate Division shall have jurisdiction of . . .(3) the administration of trusts pursuant to Title 14A”)

 

Other jurisdictions do not have statutory mandates vesting the probate division with exclusive jurisdiction over the administration of trusts as we do in Vermont. Accordingly, we hold that an IIEI claim is not available to a plaintiff who had the right to seek a remedy for the same claim in probate court.

 

Plaintiffs argue that they did not have the right to make their claim in the probate division because their claim does not concern the administration of the trust, but instead seeks a remedy for defendant’s undue influence, duress, and fraud in inducing Anna to amend the trust. In Collins v. Collins. 2017 VT 70, we held that the was the probate division was the proper forum for challenging the settlor’s capacity to make a trust Challenging the settlor’s ability to change the beneficiary necessarily implicates the administration of the trust because the trustee must know to whom to administer the trust property.  Collins, 2017 VT 70, ¶ 15. Similarly, plaintiffs challenge whether Anna was unduly or fraudulently influenced to change the trust distributions between beneficiaries involves the administration of the trust and therefore falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the probate division.

 

Plaintiffs were barred from bringing their IIEI claim in the civil division because they did not first pursue it in the probate division.  We therefore affirm the court’s decision to grant summary judgment for defendant on this claim.

 

 Unjust Enrichment

 

We conclude that plaintiffs were required to bring their unjust enrichment claim in the probate division. 

 

To succeed on a claim for unjust enrichment, a plaintiff must prove three things: "(1) a benefit was conferred on defendant; (2) defendant accepted the benefit; and (3) defendant retained the benefit under such circumstances that it would be inequitable for defendant not to compensate plaintiff for its value." Beldock v. VWSD, LLC, 2023 VT 35, ¶ 68. A recipient of a donative transfer may be liable to a claimant for unjust enrichment if the recipient diverted the donative transfer by fraud, duress, or undue influence; this includes a transfer through an inter vivos trust. See Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment § 46 (2011)

Plaintiffs asserted their claim for unjust enrichment under the theory that defendant induced Anna to amend the trust and increase his share of trust distributions through fraud and undue influence, thus reducing their expected shares and making it inequitable for defendant not to compensate them.

 

Like plaintiffs’ IIEI claim, this claim challenges the administration of the trust because plaintiffs, the trust’s beneficiaries, seek to challenge the amended distribution of the trust property, and the distribution of the trust is a main function of trust administration.  Therefore, plaintiffs were required to bring their claim in the probate division.  14A V.S.A. § 203(a); Collins, 2017 VT 70, ¶ 15.  Our holding should not be interpreted to mean that claims of unjust enrichment relating to trusts will always be under probate jurisdiction.  Here, however, plaintiffs’ underlying allegations of fraud and undue influence over the amendment to the trust distributions fall within the probate’s exclusive jurisdiction over administration of trusts

 

 Constructive Fraud

 

Similarly. Plaintiffs’ constructive fraud claim implicates the administration of the trust, which the Legislature has placed in the exclusive jurisdiction of the probate division.  Our holding should not be interpreted to mean that claims of unjust enrichment relating to trusts will always be under probate jurisdiction.  Here, the underlying allegations of fraud and undue influence over the amendment to the trust distributions fall within the probate’s exclusive jurisdiction over administration of trusts.   

 

 Plaintiffs’ argument that they should be allowed to amend their complaint to plead actual fraud based on these same facts is moot because plaintiffs were required to seek a remedy in the probate division in the first instance for this type of challenge.   

 

Promissory Estoppel

 

  A plaintiff must show the following for a promissory estoppel claim: “(1) defendant made a promise to [the promisee] that defendant should have reasonably expected to induce action or forbearance; (2) [the promisee] relied on the promise to [the promisee’s] detriment; and (3) injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise.”  Pettersen v. MonaghanSafar Ducham PLLC, 2021 VT 16, ¶ 11. Implicit to a promissory estoppel claim is a showing that the defendant breached a promise.  See Dillon v. Champion Jogbra, Inc., 175 Vt. 1, 9 (2002).

 

Here, a reasonable jury could conclude from the evidence that defendant made a promise to Anna to make plaintiffs his sole heirs. However, defendant did not break this promise because defendant has not positively and unequivocally revoked his promise, nor has he removed plaintiffs from his will.  Accordingly, plaintiffs cannot show detrimental reliance, because Anna was not harmed by any breach of the promise.  We therefore affirm the court’s decision to grant defendant summary judgment on this claim.

 

 

WAPLES, J., dissenting.   I agree with the majority that Vermont should recognize claims for intentional interference with an expectation of inheritance (IIEI) and adopt the definition of such claims from the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Economic Harm § 19 (2020).  I disagree, however, that defendant was entitled to summary judgment on this claim.  The undisputed facts do not establish that plaintiffs “had the right to seek a remedy for the same claim in a probate court.”  Id. § 19(2).  I would reverse the trial court’s decision on the IIEI claim and remand for additional proceedings.  I therefore respectfully dissent. 

 

 I do not find Collins persuasive on the question of whether plaintiffs’ claim here “implicates the administration of the trust.” The Restatement’s explicitly recognizes that a probate court “is unable to provide a remedy for wrongful conduct in relation to a nonprobate transfer, such as a transfer by inter vivos trust.”  Id. § 19 cmt. c.    In a similar vein, the UTC’s reference to the probate division’s “exclusive jurisdiction of proceedings . . . brought by a trustee or beneficiary concerning the administration of a trust” in 14A V.S.A. § 203(a) should not be read to conflict with the UTC’s express direction that “[a]n action against a beneficiary or other person for intentional interference with an inheritance or gift” is not a trust contest.  Id. § 604, official cmt. 

 

It is not clear from the undisputed facts that plaintiffs’ “challenge to the trust amendment implicates the administration of the trust,”  as opposed to falling into the category of “other proceedings involving a trust” for which the probate court “has concurrent jurisdiction with other courts of this State,” 14A V.S.A. § 203(b).  As plaintiffs explain, they are not seeking to hold a trustee liable for misconduct or mishandling of trust assets in their capacity as a trustee.

 

I believe we should draw a distinction between trusts and wills for purposes of determining the viability of an IIEI claim.  I would reverse the trial court’s summary judgment decision in defendant’s favor and I therefore respectfully dissent.  

How cited