## Facts

- Four Rivers Packing Co. hired Stuart Mackay in 1999 as an onion “field man” to secure grower contracts, then laid off employees during financial and ownership disputes.
- Mackay was rehired; he alleged that in March 2000 the general manager orally promised long-term employment “until retirement,” which Mackay estimated could be about ten years.
- Four Rivers denied making a long-term promise and asserted Mackay was an at-will employee.
- Mackay was diagnosed with Type II diabetes in 2000 and became insulin-dependent in early 2003; he informed Four Rivers about his insulin use and potential side effects.
- On March 7, 2003, Four Rivers terminated Mackay without notice; Mackay claimed the discharge was due to diabetes.
- A co-worker testified the general manager said Mackay was “too heavy” and had “too many health problems.”
- Mackay sued for (1) breach of the alleged oral employment contract and (2) disability discrimination under the Idaho Human Rights Act (IHRA) on a “regarded as” disabled theory.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Four Rivers, ruling the oral contract was barred by Idaho’s one-year Statute of Frauds provision and that Mackay failed to show disability (or being regarded as disabled) under the IHRA.

## Issues

1. Whether an alleged oral agreement to employ Mackay “until retirement” was unenforceable under Idaho Code § 9-505(1) because it was not to be performed within one year.
2. Whether summary judgment was proper on Mackay’s IHRA claim where evidence suggested Four Rivers may have regarded him as disabled due to diabetes.

## Decision

- The Idaho Supreme Court vacated summary judgment and remanded.
- The court held the alleged “until retirement” oral employment agreement was not barred by the Statute of Frauds because it was capable of being fully performed within one year.
- The court held genuine disputes of material fact existed on whether Four Rivers regarded Mackay as disabled under the IHRA, making summary judgment improper.

## Legal Principles

- Under Idaho Code § 9-505(1), the one-year Statute of Frauds applies only to agreements that, by their terms, are incapable of full performance within one year; improbability or the parties’ expectations of longer duration does not trigger the statute.
- An oral employment promise framed as lasting “until retirement” can fall outside the one-year provision because retirement could occur within one year.
- On summary judgment, courts must draw reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party and may not resolve credibility disputes or weigh competing evidence.
- Under the IHRA, evidence that an employer perceived an employee’s medical condition as substantially limiting can support a “regarded as” disability theory and may create a triable fact issue.

## Conclusion

The Idaho Supreme Court ruled that an oral “until retirement” employment promise was not categorically unenforceable under the one-year Statute of Frauds and that conflicting evidence about perceived disability and motive required trial on both the contract and IHRA claims.


Mackay v. Four Rivers Packing Co., 145 Idaho 408, 179 P.3d 1064 (Idaho 2008)