## Facts

- Diana K. Churchey worked as an hourly employee at Adolph Coors Company for about seven years and had no prior discipline.
- She missed five consecutive workdays in January 1983 due to an eye condition that was later diagnosed as conjunctivitis plus maxillary sinusitis.
- Coors directed her to its medical center; a nurse practitioner indicated she could return to work midweek, but outside physicians instructed her to remain off work until the following Monday.
- Churchey communicated with Coors about her condition but disputes existed over whether she failed to report medical “clearances” to return to work and whether any omission was intentional.
- Coors discharged her for “unexcused absence and dishonesty,” and internal records reflected “dishonesty” as the reason for termination.
- Churchey alleged that the “dishonesty” characterization harmed her reputation and that she was effectively forced to repeat it when prospective employers asked why she left Coors.
- She sued for wrongful discharge, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress; the trial court granted summary judgment for Coors on all claims, and the court of appeals affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether Coors’s written policies and progressive discipline practices could create an implied contract limiting at-will termination and, if so, whether disputed facts about compliance with those policies precluded summary judgment on wrongful discharge.
2. Whether labeling Churchey as discharged for “dishonesty” could support defamation and whether factual disputes existed on falsity, publication (including compelled self-publication), damages, and conditional privilege.
3. Whether Coors’s conduct in investigating and terminating Churchey was extreme enough to constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress as a matter of law.

## Decision

- The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for Coors on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim.
- The court reversed summary judgment on wrongful discharge, holding material factual disputes existed regarding whether Coors’s policies formed enforceable limitations on termination and whether Coors followed its own procedures.
- The court reversed summary judgment on defamation, holding material factual disputes existed regarding the truth of the “dishonesty” charge, publication (including potential compelled self-publication), damages, and whether any conditional privilege applied or was abused.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings on wrongful discharge and defamation.

## Legal Principles

- Employer manuals, policies, and practices may create implied contractual limits on at-will discharge when they contain specific commitments a reasonable employee could view as binding.
- Whether an employer’s policies form an implied contract and whether the employer complied with promised procedures are commonly fact questions unsuitable for summary judgment when the record is disputed.
- Accusing an employee of “dishonesty” may be defamatory because it imputes misconduct likely to harm reputation and employability; falsity and related elements may require jury resolution when the circumstances are contested.
- Publication in an employment-defamation case can present triable issues where internal dissemination occurs for business purposes and where the employee plausibly alleges compelled repetition of the stated reason for termination to prospective employers.
- Employer communications about termination reasons may be conditionally privileged, but the existence and abuse of the privilege (including good faith and reckless disregard for truth) can be fact-dependent.
- Intentional infliction of emotional distress requires conduct that is extreme and outrageous; disputed or even wrongful employment termination conduct may still fall short of that threshold as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

The court held that disputed evidence about Coors’s discharge policies and the factual basis for the “dishonesty” label required trial on wrongful discharge and defamation, while Coors’s termination-related conduct did not meet Colorado’s stringent standard for intentional infliction of emotional distress.


Churchey v. Adolph Coors Co., 759 P.2d 1336 (Colo. 1988)