The company's confusion 'was understandable given the mixed messages'
A sales manager who delivered a presentation asking for a promotion — and was subsequently laid off — did not have much luck in the BC Superior Court after seeking damages.
On Dec. 29, 2021, the employee delivered a PowerPoint presentation to the co-directors of ClearDent, a dental software company, proposing that a new position be created for her.
The presentation was titled “My Role at ClearDent” and outlined her personal conflicts with another manager, while suggesting that she take on the new role of “direct of operations.”
The PowerPoint contained statements such as “It’s time to move on,’ “I need to move away from the role of sales manager,” “I want to stay with ClearDent” and “I must move for my mental and physical health.”
In discussions after the presentation, the sales manager claims she was told she had effectively resigned or she should go on paid or unpaid leave. She declined both leave options and clarified that she had not resigned.
On Jan. 13, 2022, the company terminated the employee without cause and said she was entitled to two weeks’ pay in lieu of notice per the employment agreement. She was terminated during a Zoom videoconference while house sitting in Mexico.
At the time of termination, the sales manager was 54 years old and earned $95,000 in base salary, plus commissions and bonuses.
She sought damages for breach of contract equivalent to 14.5 month’s earnings including her commission and bonuses, aggravated damages of $25,000 and costs plus interest of $8,000.
Notice period
The sales manager claimed that her termination was done in an “unduly sensitive manner” and that it was “confusing, distressing and callous.” She also claimed that the termination exacerbated previously known health problems.
There was some uncertainty as to the length of her employment with ClearDent as she had provided services as an independent contractor between 2006 and 2011, and then was a technical sales employee from 2011 to 2018. She then resigned before returning to the company in 2019 one year later.
The court determined that the length of employment was two years and nine months at ClearDent.
It also determined that she was not wrongfully dismissed: Per the termination provision, she was entitled to a notice period of two weeks, said Walkem.
“The Employment Agreement contains an unambiguous Termination Provision, adopting the standards and timelines set out in the ESA [Employment Standards Act]. It is valid and enforceable.”
However, if the termination provision had been considered void, Walkem said the court would have awarded the sales manager two months’ wages in lieu of notice at the common law, less the two weeks’ notice she had already received.
Aggravated damages
As for the aggravated damages, the court did not find that ClearDent’s conduct in the manner of termination was inappropriate, for several reasons.
“A plaintiff must prove something beyond the normal distress and hurt feelings that invariably accompany the loss of employment… Conduct can be insensitive, but not amount to the ‘unduly insensitive’ conduct required to ground a claim in aggravated damages,” said Walkem.
Read more: What exactly makes at termination bad faith?
In the two weeks after the PowerPoint presentation, ClearDent struggled with how to respond, she said.
“I find that the [company’s] confusion was understandable given the mixed messages in the PowerPoint presentation and correspondence.”
And with the termination, the employer was not unduly sensitive,” said Waldem.
“I find that the anxiety [the sales manager] suffered was of the normal level for someone who has been terminated, has to search for alternative employment, and alternative health insurance.”
The employee was, however, entitled to receive her bonus.
Shultz v. Prococious Technology Inc., dba Cleardent, 2022 BCSC 1420
