## Facts

- Larry N. Wisehart worked as an at-will loan officer for Vectra Bank Colorado, N.A.
- Bank policy required certain loan approvals from other officers before closing, though approvals were sometimes obtained after closing in practice.
- Before a scheduled loan closing, Wisehart sought approval from a senior loan officer, who requested additional detailed information.
- Wisehart returned later that day with the requested information, but the senior officer had left and could not be found.
- Without receiving the additional information, the senior officer told another employee he would not approve the loan, although neither he nor the bank objected to the loan itself.
- Wisehart’s superiors knew the closing date in advance and knew on the closing date that Wisehart intended to proceed, but no one told him that approval would not be given.
- While Wisehart attended the closing in another city, the bank issued his final paycheck in anticipation of termination.
- Upon his return, supervisor Michael Meganck told Wisehart he was terminated for failing to obtain required written approvals before closing.
- Wisehart sued the bank and Meganck for fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment, alleging defendants set him up to be fired and used a false reason to replace certain long-term employees.

## Issues

1. Whether an at-will employee may maintain claims for fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment when the alleged fraud is used to engineer or justify the employee’s termination.
2. Whether recognizing such fraud claims would improperly undermine Colorado’s employment-at-will doctrine.

## Decision

- The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the bank and Meganck.
- The court held Wisehart’s fraud theories, though labeled as misrepresentation and concealment, were substantively wrongful-termination claims based on the loss of at-will employment.
- Because an at-will employer may terminate employment at any time without cause, allegedly contriving or misstating a reason for discharge (even through fraud) did not create an independent tort claim.
- The court concluded that allowing fraud claims on these facts would effectively impose liability for giving a dishonest reason where no reason is required under the at-will rule.

## Legal Principles

- Colorado employment-at-will permits either party to end the employment relationship at any time without cause, absent a recognized exception.
- Courts assess claims by their substance rather than their labels; a tort claim may be barred when it is, in essence, an attempt to recover for an at-will discharge.
- An employer’s alleged use of misrepresentation or concealment to create, support, or communicate a reason for terminating an at-will employee does not, without more, support a standalone fraud claim when the asserted injury is the termination itself.
- Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, with reasonable inferences drawn for the nonmovant.

## Conclusion

The court held that an at-will employee cannot avoid the limits of the at-will doctrine by reframing a discharge as fraud where the claimed harm is the loss of employment and the alleged deception merely explains how or why the termination occurred.


Wisehart v. Meganck, 66 P.3d 124 (Colo. App. 2002)