Johannsen

Johannsen v. Nike, Inc.

Good Law
336 F. App'x 600
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 2, 2009No. 08-35040California777 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Connie Johannsen (“Johannsen”), a former Nike Regional Sales Representative, sued Nike under Montana’s Wrongful Discharge from Employment Act (the “Act”), Mont.Code ANN. § 39-2-901 et seq. Jo-hannsen, who resigned from her position at Nike, contends that she was constructively discharged. After a bench trial, the district court entered judgment for Jo-hannsen. On appeal, Nike contends that the district court relied on clearly erroneous factual findings and a mistaken interpretation of the Act. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

The Act defines constructive discharge as:

Mont.Code Ann. § 39-2-903(1). The district court agreed with Johannsen that Nike had rendered her job objectively intolerable such that voluntary termination was the only reasonable alternative.

The Montana Supreme Court has explained that “whether a constructive discharge has occurred is usually a question of fact determined by the totality of the circumstances.” Bellanger v. Am. Music Co., 325 Mont. 221 , 104 P.3d 1075, 1078 (2004). We review a district court’s findings of fact entered after a bench trial for clear error. See Saltarelli v. Bob Baker Group Med.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.