## Facts

- Olga Monge worked for Beebe Rubber Company under an oral employment arrangement of indefinite duration in a union shop.
- Monge testified that when she sought a better-paying position, her foreman implied she would need to be “nice” to get it and later asked her to go out with him; she refused.
- After her refusal, Monge was moved to lower-paying work, lost overtime opportunities, and was assigned demeaning cleaning tasks; she claimed the foreman ridiculed her.
- In July 1969, a dispute arose when Monge ran out of boxes; after she consulted the union steward and then refused the foreman’s directive, she was fired but later reinstated after union intervention.
- Monge later had illness-related absences; after three consecutive days without the notice the company asserted was required, the personnel manager sent a letter treating her as having voluntarily quit under company policy.
- Monge sued in assumpsit for breach of the oral employment contract, alleging the separation was a pretext and that she was effectively discharged out of hostility and retaliation.
- A jury found for Monge and awarded $2,500, consisting of lost wages and an amount attributed to mental suffering; the employer sought to set aside the verdict and for JNOV.

## Issues

1. Whether termination of an at-will employment relationship, when motivated by bad faith, malice, or retaliation, constitutes a breach of the employment contract.
2. Whether the evidence permitted the jury to find that Monge’s separation was motivated by bad faith or malice rather than a neutral application of attendance policy.
3. Whether damages for mental suffering are recoverable in an action for breach of an employment contract.

## Decision

- The court held that an employer’s at-will termination motivated by bad faith, malice, or retaliation constitutes a breach of the employment contract.
- The court held the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding that Monge’s separation was maliciously motivated and in bad faith, and it sustained the verdict as to liability and lost wages.
- The court held that mental-suffering damages are not generally recoverable in a contract action and disallowed that portion of the award.
- The judgment was modified to remove the mental-suffering component while preserving recovery for lost wages.

## Legal Principles

- Although employment of indefinite duration is generally terminable at will, an employer may not terminate when the motive is bad faith, malice, or retaliation; such a discharge breaches the employment contract.
- Appellate review of a jury verdict is limited: conflicts in testimony and credibility determinations belong to the jury, and a verdict stands if supported by evidence.
- Contract damages ordinarily compensate expectancy interests such as lost wages; mental suffering is not a proper element of damages in a routine contract action absent special circumstances or a separate tort basis.

## Conclusion

The court recognized a contract-based limitation on at-will discharge by treating terminations driven by bad faith, malice, or retaliation as breaches of the employment relationship, upheld the jury’s finding of wrongful discharge and lost-wage damages, and eliminated recovery for mental suffering as impermissible contract damages.


Monge v. Beebe Rubber Co., 316 A.2d 549 (N.H. 1974)