[No. 24942-5-III. Division Three. May 17, 2007.]
[1] Trial — Taking Case From Jury — Sufficiency of Evidence — Judgment as a Matter of Law — Review — Role of Appellate Court. An appellate court reviews a CR 50 judgment as a matter of law by applying the same standard the trial court applied in ruling on the motion. [2] Trial — Taking Case From Jury — Sufficiency of Evidence — Judgment as a Matter of Law — Test. A court should grant a postverdict CR 50 motion for judgment as a matter of law if, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, it can say as a matter of law that the verdict is unsupported by substantial evidence or reasonable inference. If any justifiable evidence exists on which reasonable minds might reach conclusions consistent with the verdict, the issue is for the jury. A motion for judgment as a matter of law admits the truth of the opponent's evidence and all inferences that can reasonably be drawn therefrom. [3] Trial — Taking Case From Jury — Sufficiency of Evidence — Judgment as a Matter of Law — Court Rule — Amendment — Applicability. A trial court may decline to apply the time provisions of CR 50(b) that became effective September 1, 2005, to a case pending on that date if application of the provisions would be unfeasible and would work an injustice. [4] Contracts — Construction — Question of Law or Fact — Test. Contract interpretation is a question of law if (1) the interpretation does not depend on the use of extrinsic evidence or (2) only one reasonable inference can be drawn from the extrinsic evidence. [5] Employment — Employee Policy Manual — Effect — Promise of Treatment — Termination Procedures — Continued Pay During Interim Suspension — Violation — Outright Termination. Where a contractual employment handbook states that an employee subject to termination is first entitled to a formal hearing and that, in the interim, the employer may suspend the employee with pay until the final termination decision is reached, an employee who is terminated outright before receiving a formal hearing on the matter is entitled to wages for the time between the termination and the formal hearing. [6] Interest — Prejudgment Interest — Review — Standard of Review. An award of prejudgment interest is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. [7] Employment — Compensation — Damages for Nonpayment of Wages — Prejudgment Interest — Statutory Authority. Under 49.60.030(2), which incorporates by reference the remedies authorized by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g)(1), a plaintiff who is awarded back pay may be awarded prejudgment interest on the award. [8] Interest — Prejudgment Interest — Liquidated Claim — Necessity. Prejudgment interest may be awarded only on a liquidated claim. [9] Interest — Prejudgment Interest — Liquidated Claim — What Constitutes. For purposes of awarding prejudgment interest, a claim is liquidated if the evidence furnishes data that, if believed, permits computation of the amount owed with exactness, without reliance on opinion or discretion. [10] Interest — Prejudgment Interest — Liquidated Claim — Unpaid Wages — Set Salary. For purposes of awarding prejudgment interest, wages owed by an employer to an employee are liquidated if the employee was paid a set salary. [11] New Trial — Lack of Substantial Justice — Applicability — Important Rights Materially Affected. Under CR 59(a), a trial court may grant a motion for a new trial when important rights of the moving party are materially affected because substantial justice has not been done. [12] New Trial — Review — Questions of Fact — Standard of Review. When a trial court's decision to grant a motion for a new trial is based on questions of fact, an appellate court will not disturb the ruling absent a manifest abuse of discretion. Discretion is not abused unless the decision is manifestly unreasonable or is based on untenable grounds or reasons. [13] New Trial — Review — Discretion of Court — Amount of Deference. An appellate court will give greater deference to a trial court's decision to grant a new trial than to a decision to deny a new trial. [14] New Trial — Lack of Substantial Evidence — Test. A new trial is appropriate under CR 59(a) if the court, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, can say, as a matter of law, that there is no substantial evidence or reasonable inferences to sustain a verdict for the nonmoving party. [15] Trial — Issues of Law — Role of Judge — Role of Jury. In a proceeding before a trial court, questions of law are for the court to decide, not the jury. A trial court errs by assigning to the jury the additional duty of resolving questions of law inherent in the factual situation before the jury. [16] Judgment — Reconsideration — Matters Considered — Issue Raised At Trial. An issue raised during trial is properly before the court on a motion for reconsideration. [17] Employment — Compensation — Damages for Nonpayment of Wages — Double Damages — Statutory Provisions — Applicability — In General. RCW 49.52.070, which grants the remedy of double damages and authorizes awards of attorney fees and costs, applies to any employer who willfully and with intent withholds an employee's wages. [18] Employment — Compensation — Damages for Nonpayment of Wages — "Wages" — What Constitutes — Back Pay For Period of Termination Before Completion of Termination Procedures. An employee's claim for back pay for a period of time that the employee was terminated from employment before completion of contractual termination procedures is remediable under RCW 49.52.070, under which an employee may recover double damages in an action against the employer for willful and intentional failure to pay wages in violation of a statute, ordinance, or contract. [19] Employment — Compensation — Damages for Nonpayment of Wages — Attorney Fees — Back Pay. Attorney fees may be awarded under RCW 49.48.030 to a employee who prevails on a claim for back pay for a period of time that the employee is terminated from employment before completion of contractual termination procedures. Nature of Action: A tenured college professor sought damages from the college for wrongful discharge, breach of contract, and wrongful wage withholding. The professor was terminated from his position before completion of the formal termination procedures set forth in a contractual faculty handbook. The handbook provided, among other things, that faculty members could be suspended with pay while termination was pending. Superior Court: After the jury returned a verdict in favor of the college, the Superior Court for Spokane County, No. 04-2-01072-6, Robert D. Austin, J., on January 20, 2006, entered an order (1) granting the professor's motion for judgment as a matter of law, ruling that the college had breached the parties' contract by discharging the professor without pay prior to the formal dismissal hearing and ordering payment of back wages and prejudgment interest and (2) granting a new trial on whether the college willfully withheld wages, materially breached the parties' contract by not informing the professor of its concerns, and breached the parties' contract by not following its informal and formal handbook procedures. Court of Appeals: Holding that the trial court did not err by granting the professor's motion for judgment as a matter of law and concluding that the professor was due back wages and prejudgment interest for the time between his actual termination and the formal termination hearing and that the trial court did not err by granting a new trial on the issues of whether the college materially breached the parties' contract and willfully withheld wages, the court affirms the trial court's order. Charles M. Andersen- and Courtney R. Beaudoin- (of Winston & Cashatt), for appellant. R. Bruce Johnston-, for respondent. ¶1 BROWN, J. — Dr. Tony Mega, a tenured Whitworth College professor, sued the college for breach of contract and wrongful discharge. The trial court set aside a defense verdict and granted Dr. Mega judgment as a matter of law on a wage issue, and a new trial on other contract issues. On appeal, Whitworth contends the trial court erred in (1) granting judgment as a matter of law for wages accrued during the contractual hearing process, (2) granting a new trial on whether termination procedures were followed, and (3) granting a new trial on Dr. Mega's claim for wrongfully withheld wages under RCW 49.52.070. Finding no error, we affirm. FACTS ¶2 Whitworth hired Dr. Mega as a chemistry professor in 1993 and received behavior complaints. Ultimately, the evaluation committee recommended against tenure because it "lost confidence in [Dr. Mega's] collegiality." Ex. P-63. But by a July 29, 1999 letter, Whitworth President, William P. Robinson, agreed to recommend Dr. Mega for tenure if he treated his colleagues and others collegially, with courtesy and thoughtfulness. Dr. Mega agreed "that a breach of these professional responsibilities may be construed by the administration as an act of insubordination and could result in the action to terminate a tenured appointment." Ex. P-63. ¶3 In September 2000, the Board of Trustees granted tenure based on President Robinson's recommendation and Dr. Mega's interim collegiality. Afterwards, Whitworth began receiving complaints again about Dr. Mega's behavior. Even so, Whitworth and Dr. Mega entered into tenure contracts for 2000-01, 2001-02, and 2002-03. Central here is the 2002-03 contract. It partly states: It is possible this contract may be rescinded or modified, dependent upon the outcome of the Faculty Affairs Committee inquiry being conducted at the time of writing this contract. Sections 1.14 and 1.15 of the Spring 2000 edition of the Faculty Handbook describe the inquiry process. . . . . This offer of appointment is made subject to the laws, rules, and adopted policies of Whitworth College as contained in the Faculty Handbook. Ex. P-87. ¶4 In section 1.14, titled "Termination of Continuous Tenured Appointments," the handbook details termination procedures for a tenured professor. Clerk's Papers (CP) at 97. The dismissal procedures for cause are separated into preliminary procedures and formal procedures. The preliminary procedures envision settlement discussions. Additionally, either party may request an informal inquiry by the Faculty Affairs Committee (FAC1). If settlement and FAC1 negotiations fail, FAC1 may recommend either dismissal proceedings or a probationary year. The vice president for academic affairs and dean of faculty, along with the president, make the administrative decision. ¶5 If dismissal is pursued, the formal procedure requires written notification and a termination cause statement. The affected faculty person may request a formal hearing before a second Faculty Affairs Committee (FAC2), with provision for new members. If the dismissal is upheld by the FAC2, then a request for a final review by the board's academic affairs committee may be requested that leads to a final decision. ¶6 The faculty handbook, section 1.14.3, provides for suspensions: Until the final decision regarding termination of an appointment has been reached, the faculty member will be suspended or assigned to other duties in lieu of suspension only if immediate harm would occur by the continuance of the regular position. Before suspending a faculty member, when the ultimate determination is pending through the institution's process, the administration will consult with the Faculty Affairs Committee. Salary will continue during the period of suspension. Suspension is appropriate only pending a hearing. A suspension which is intended to be final is, in fact, a dismissal and therefore will be dealt with as a dismissal. CP at 100. ¶7 In March 2002, a FAC1 informally inquired into Dr. Mega's conduct. Without mention of the July 29, 1999 letter, the FAC1 decided "cause to break tenure" existed, and encouraged Dr. Mega to resign. Ex. D-501-2200. Dr. Mega refused. ¶8 On June 7, 2002, Whitworth wrote to Dr. Mega, explaining it had asked the FAC1 to "conduct an informal inquiry as to whether you had violated the terms of the July 1999 written agreement with President Robinson." Ex. 501-2202. Based upon the May 15, 2002 FAC1 resignation recommendation, and citing section 1.14.2.2.3, Whitworth stated it was "proceeding with dismissal for cause[ ]" and rescinding the 2002-03 contract. Id. Although mentioning "appeal" and the section 1.14.2.2.3.2 process, Whitworth asked Dr. Mega to turn in his keys and not return to the campus without clearance. Ex. 501-2203. Whitworth did not mention suspension or interim pay. ¶9 In August 2002, Dr. Mega requested a FAC2 hearing. On July 28, 2003, the FAC2 concluded "the College has established by clear and convincing evidence that there was adequate case to terminate Professor Mega's tenured appointment." Def.'s Trial Ex. D-550, at 10. President Robinson's July 29, 1999 letter was a motivating factor. In October 2003, the Trustee Academic Affairs Committee "sustained" Dr. Mega's dismissal. Def.'s Trial Ex. 553. ¶10 Dr. Mega sued, partly alleging wrongful discharge, breach of contract, and wrongful wage withholding. The jury found (1) Whitworth did not materially breach its contract with Dr. Mega by discharging him without having clear and convincing evidence of adequate cause, (2) Whitworth did not breach the parties' contract by discharging Dr. Mega without following the handbook's informal procedures, and (3) Whitworth did not breach the parties' contract by discharging Dr. Mega without following the handbook's formal procedures. Since the jury did not find a breach, the special verdict form instructed the jury not to reach the issue of past wages. ¶11 Dr. Mega filed a CR 50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law on liability or, alternatively, a new trial under CR 59 on all jury issues. The court ruled Whitworth breached the parties' contract by discharging him without pay prior to the formal dismissal hearing and ordered back wages and prejudgment interest. The court granted a new trial on whether Whitworth violated RCW 49.52.070, whether Whitworth materially breached the parties' contract by not informing Dr. Mega of its concerns, and whether Whitworth breached the parties' contract by not following its informal and formal handbook procedures. Whitworth appealed. ANALYSIS A. Wages During Termination Process ¶12 The issue is whether the trial court erred in granting Dr. Mega's CR 50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law and concluding he was due wages for the time between his termination and the formal hearing. ¶15 On September 1, 2005, during trial, CR 50 amendments became effective, requiring the motion before submitting the case to the jury. CR 50(a)(2). A movant may "renew" the request for judgment as a matter of law by filing a motion no later than 10 days after entry of judgment. CR 50(b). The language "whether or not the party has moved previously for judgment as a matter of law" was deleted from CR 50(b). ¶16 Civil rules apply to "all proceedings in actions after they take effect, and also all further proceedings in actions pending on their effective dates, except to the extent that in the opinion of the superior court, expressed by its order, the application of rules in a particular action pending when the rules take effect would not be feasible or would work injustice, in which event the procedure existing at the time the action was brought applies." CR 86. Consistently, the court found the amendments to CR 50 were "not feasible and would work an injustice." CP at 1141. This was not error, considering the court's reasoning that a legal question was wrongly submitted to the jury and an injustice to Dr. Mega resulted. Whitworth's prejudice argument is unpersuasive given the amount of litigation between the parties prior to the amendment. ¶18 Under Berg v. Hudesman, 115 Wn.2d 657, 668, 801 P.2d 222 (1990), contract interpretation is a question of law when (1) the interpretation does not depend on the use of extrinsic evidence or (2) solely one reasonable inference can be drawn from the extrinsic evidence. Here, the trial court correctly assessed the presence of a legal question regarding contract interpretation not involving extrinsic evidence. Even if the extrinsic evidence were considered, solely one reasonable inference can be drawn: Dr. Mega was to be paid until the termination procedures were completed. Thus, no substantial evidence or reasonable inference could sustain a verdict for Whitworth. Sing, 134 Wn.2d at 29. Further, Whitworth incorrectly argues the court awarded wages sua sponte. Dr. Mega requested wages from his complaint forward. ¶19 Whitworth contends Dr. Mega was not entitled to salary after June 7, 2002. But Dr. Mega refused to resign after the informal FAC1 proceedings and was entitled to the suspension procedures detailed in the faculty handbook. Instead, Whitworth summarily dismissed him on June 7, incorrectly believing it had the right under President Robinson's July 29, 1999 letter. B. CR 59 New Trial Motion ¶22 The issue is whether the trial court erred in granting a new trial under CR 59 after reasoning it had improperly instructed the jury on the contract issues. ¶25 The trial court granted a new trial on the issue of whether Whitworth materially breached the parties' contract: (1) by not providing adequate information after July 1999 and before termination to alert Dr. Mega of Whitworth's concerns, (2) by discharging Dr. Mega without following the informal procedures requiring Whitworth to seek a mutual settlement and provide prior notice of the charges before convening a formal dismissal for cause hearing, (3) by discharging Dr. Mega without following the handbook's formal procedures requiring written notice of the nature of the charges prior to the formal dismissal for cause hearing, (4) by impairing Dr. Mega's contractual rights to a fair hearing before unbiased faculty members when discharging him before the formal dismissal for cause hearing, and (5) by not providing Dr. Mega with the opportunity to obtain production of his tenure file and other documents for use at the formal dismissal for cause hearing. We believe that the July 29, 1999 agreement between Dr. Mega and President Robinson was a contract with a condition precedent. And that those conditions were fulfilled. And the contract obligations were met by both parties, and therefore, there was no modification. And as a matter of law, the Court can find so. And it's not necessary to instruct the jury on modification. It will just confuse the jury. Report of Proceedings at 2395-96. Therefore, Whitworth is incorrect in arguing the matter was not properly before the trial court when the reconsideration motion was argued. ¶28 Since greater deference is owed to a trial court's decision to grant a new trial than a decision to deny one, we conclude a tenable basis exists for the court's new trial order. Accordingly, the court did not abuse its discretion in granting Dr. Mega's request for a new trial on the contract breach issues specified above. C. RCW 49.52.070 ¶29 The issue is whether the trial court erred in granting a new trial to decide whether Whitworth violated RCW 49.52.070. Whitworth contends the statute is inapplicable. D. Costs and Attorney Fees ¶32 RCW 49.48.030 provides that in any action in which a person successfully recovers wages or salary owed to him or her, the court shall assess reasonable attorney fees against the employer. Since the trial court did not err in granting Dr. Mega's wages as a matter of law, he is granted attorney fees under RCW 49.48.030. ¶33 Affirmed. SWEENEY, C.J., and KATO, J. PRO TEM., concur.