Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Dorrance v. Valley National Bank
Citations: 165 Ariz. 162; 797 P.2d 701; 5 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1427; 55 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 78; 1990 Ariz. App. LEXIS 98Docket: No. 2 CA-CV 89-0195
Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona; March 22, 1990; Arizona; State Appellate Court
Appellant James Dorrance appeals the summary judgment favoring Valley National Bank in his wrongful discharge, breach of contract, and breach of the covenant of good faith lawsuit. The trial court determined that Dorrance’s claims are preempted by federal law, specifically the National Bank Act, which grants banks the authority to appoint and dismiss officers at their discretion. Dorrance, previously an assistant vice president and manager of the trust department, was placed on probation following conduct issues and subsequently terminated for violating probation terms. He alleged wrongful termination after reporting misconduct by another employee. The court found no material fact issues raised by Dorrance that could prevent judgment. Dorrance's arguments against federal preemption were unsupported, as the cited cases did not establish a public policy exception to the National Bank Act’s provisions, and he failed to provide legal precedent for his claims. Claims against two bank employees for defamation and contract interference are not part of this appeal. Dorrance's claims are preempted unless he demonstrates a factual dispute regarding the Bank Act's requirements at his termination. The bank provided affidavits from senior vice president Robert Johnson and CEO Richard Lehmann, illustrating that Lehmann delegated authority to discharge officers and had overseen significant restructuring leading to widespread terminations. Johnson confirmed he discussed Dorrance’s performance with Lehmann, received approval for Dorrance's termination, and communicated this to Dorrance’s supervisor. Lehmann, while unable to recall Dorrance’s specific termination, affirmed he had no reason to doubt Johnson's account. Dorrance argued that Lehmann's lack of memory raised a factual issue, referencing a case where conflicting evidence denied summary judgment. However, the court found that Lehmann's inability to remember did not undermine Johnson's assertion of approval. Dorrance failed to present evidence contradicting the bank's claims, leading to the affirmation of the trial court's summary judgment.