WRONGFUL TERMINATION DEMAND LETTER

Idaho Law

[ATTORNEY/FIRM LETTERHEAD]

[Firm Name]
[Address Line 1]
[City, State ZIP]
Tel: [Phone Number]
Fax: [Fax Number]
[Attorney Email]
[Idaho State Bar No.]

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
AND VIA EMAIL TO: [recipient_email]

[Date]

[Employer Contact Name]
[Title]
[Company Legal Name]
[Company Address]
[City, State ZIP]

Re: Wrongful Termination of [Client Full Name]
Former Position: [Job Title]
Dates of Employment: [Start Date] through [Termination Date]
CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT COMMUNICATION - I.R.E. 408

Dear [Mr./Ms./Mx. Last Name]:

This firm represents [Client Full Name] ("our client") regarding [his/her/their] wrongful termination from employment with [Company Legal Name] ("[Company Short Name]") on [Termination Date]. Please direct all further communications to our office.

We write to demand immediate action to remedy the unlawful termination and to resolve this matter short of litigation. [Company Short Name]'s termination of our client violates Idaho law and exposes the Company to substantial liability.

I. IDAHO EMPLOYMENT LAW FRAMEWORK

A. At-Will Employment and Its Exceptions

Idaho follows the employment-at-will doctrine. See Jackson v. Minidoka Irrigation Dist., 98 Idaho 330, 563 P.2d 54 (1977). However, Idaho courts recognize important exceptions:

1. Public Policy Exception

Idaho recognizes the public policy exception to at-will employment. See Sorensen v. Comm Tek, Inc., 118 Idaho 664, 799 P.2d 70 (1990).

Protected activities under Idaho public policy include:
- Refusing to violate a law or regulation
- Exercising statutory rights (jury duty, workers' compensation)
- Performing important public duties

2. Implied Contract Exception

Idaho recognizes implied employment contracts based on employer handbooks, policies, and oral representations. See Metcalf v. Intermountain Gas Co., 116 Idaho 622, 778 P.2d 744 (1989).

3. Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

Idaho recognizes an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in employment contracts to a limited extent. See Metcalf v. Intermountain Gas Co., 116 Idaho 622, 778 P.2d 744 (1989).

4. Statutory Protections

Idaho provides specific statutory protections:
- Idaho Human Rights Act (IHRA): Idaho Code Section 67-5901 et seq.
- Protection of Public Employees Act: Idaho Code Section 6-2101 et seq. (public employees)
- Workers' Compensation Retaliation: Idaho Code Section 72-1322
- Jury Service Protection: Idaho Code Section 2-218

B. Idaho Administrative Procedures

Idaho Human Rights Commission (IHRC):
- File within 1 year of alleged discriminatory act
- IHRC investigates and issues determination
- Dual-filing with EEOC available (300 days for EEOC claims)
- Right to sue after investigation or 1 year

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. Employment History

[Client Full Name] was employed by [Company Short Name] from [Start Date] through [Termination Date] as a [Job Title] in [City], Idaho.

Employment Summary:

Our client was a dedicated employee with an excellent performance record:
- [Describe positive performance history]
- [Describe promotions, raises, commendations]
- [Describe any relevant achievements]

B. The Protected Activity / Triggering Event

On or about [Date], our client [describe protected activity]:

• Refused to violate Idaho or federal law by [describe illegal act requested]
• Filed a workers' compensation claim under Idaho Code Section 72-1322
• Filed a discrimination complaint with IHRC
• Served on jury duty as required by law
• [Other protected activity]

C. The Wrongful Termination

On [Termination Date], [Company Short Name] terminated our client, purportedly for [stated reason]. This stated reason is pretextual, as evidenced by:

1. Temporal proximity: The termination occurred just [X days/weeks] after the protected activity
2. Prior positive treatment: Our client had [no prior discipline / positive reviews / recent promotion]
3. Disparate treatment: Similarly situated employees who did not engage in protected activity were [not terminated / treated more favorably]
4. Shifting explanations: [Describe any inconsistent reasons given]
5. Direct evidence: [Describe any statements indicating true motive]

III. LEGAL CLAIMS UNDER IDAHO LAW

A. Wrongful Discharge in Violation of Public Policy

Under Sorensen v. Comm Tek, Inc., 118 Idaho 664, 799 P.2d 70 (1990), Idaho recognizes a cause of action for wrongful discharge when termination violates public policy.

Elements of Claim:
1. Employer-employee relationship
2. Termination of employment
3. Termination violated an important public policy
4. Damages resulting from termination

Public Policy Violated: [Company Short Name] terminated our client for [describe conduct that violated public policy], which violates [cite specific Idaho statute, regulation, or constitutional provision].

See also Watson v. Idaho Falls Consol. Hosps., Inc., 111 Idaho 44, 720 P.2d 632 (1986); MacNeil v. Minidoka Mem. Hosp., 108 Idaho 588, 701 P.2d 208 (1985).

B. Retaliatory Discharge - Workers' Compensation (Idaho Code Section 72-1322)

[If applicable:] Idaho Code Section 72-1322 provides:

"No employer shall discharge an employee solely because of the employee's exercise of any of the employee's rights under this law."

Our client filed a workers' compensation claim on [Date] for [injury]. [Company Short Name] terminated our client in retaliation for exercising this statutory right.

Remedies under Section 72-1322:
- Reinstatement to former position
- Back wages
- Lost benefits
- Reasonable attorney's fees

C. Violation of Idaho Human Rights Act (Idaho Code Section 67-5901 et seq.)

[If applicable:] [Company Short Name]'s termination of our client constitutes unlawful [discrimination/retaliation] under the IHRA based on [protected characteristic/protected activity].

The IHRA prohibits discrimination based on:
- Race, color, religion, national origin
- Sex (including pregnancy)
- Age (40 and over)
- Disability

IHRA Remedies:
- Compensatory damages
- Punitive damages in appropriate cases
- Attorney's fees and costs
- Injunctive relief

D. Breach of Implied Contract

[Company Short Name]'s Employee Handbook and representations created an implied contract limiting termination to "just cause" and/or requiring specific progressive discipline procedures.

Evidence of implied contract:
- Employee Handbook provisions stating [quote relevant language]
- Personnel policies requiring [describe procedures]
- Oral representations by [Name] that [describe assurances]

See Metcalf v. Intermountain Gas Co., 116 Idaho 622, 778 P.2d 744 (1989).

E. Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

[Company Short Name] breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by terminating our client in bad faith to [describe purpose, e.g., avoid paying commission, benefits, etc.].

See Metcalf v. Intermountain Gas Co., 116 Idaho 622, 778 P.2d 744 (1989).

IV. DAMAGES

A. Economic Damages

1. Back Pay

2. Lost Benefits

3. Front Pay

B. Compensatory Damages (Non-Economic)

Our client has suffered severe emotional distress:
- [Describe anxiety, depression, humiliation]
- [Describe impact on health and relationships]
- [Describe medical treatment sought]

Emotional distress damages: $[Amount]

C. Punitive Damages

[Company Short Name]'s conduct was willful, oppressive, and in conscious disregard of our client's rights, warranting punitive damages under Idaho law.

See Idaho Code Section 6-1604 (punitive damages require preponderance showing of oppressive, fraudulent, malicious, or outrageous conduct).

D. Attorney's Fees

Under Idaho Code Section 72-1322 (WC retaliation) and applicable civil rights statutes, our client is entitled to reasonable attorney's fees.

Estimated fees through trial: $[Amount]

E. Summary of Damages

V. SETTLEMENT DEMAND

We demand that [Company Short Name] pay $[Settlement Demand Amount] in full settlement of all claims.

Additional Terms:
- Neutral reference (dates and position only)
- No contest to unemployment benefits
- Expungement of personnel file
- Mutual non-disparagement
- Confidentiality (terms to be negotiated)

VI. RESPONSE DEADLINE

Please respond within fourteen (14) calendar days, no later than [Response Deadline Date].

If we do not receive a satisfactory response, we are authorized to file suit in the [District Court of the [Ordinal] Judicial District of the State of Idaho, in and for the County of [County] / United States District Court for the District of Idaho] without further notice.

Causes of Action:
1. Wrongful Discharge in Violation of Public Policy
2. Violation of Idaho Code Section 72-1322 (Workers' Compensation Retaliation)
3. Violation of Idaho Human Rights Act (Idaho Code Section 67-5901 et seq.)
4. Breach of Implied Contract
5. Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

VII. DOCUMENT PRESERVATION

Immediately implement a litigation hold to preserve all relevant documents and ESI regarding our client's employment, performance, and termination.

VIII. CONFIDENTIALITY

This letter is protected by Idaho Rule of Evidence 408 and constitutes a confidential settlement communication.

Sincerely,

[Attorney Name]
[Title]
[Firm Name]
[Idaho State Bar No.]

Enclosures:
- Authorization to Represent

cc: [Client Name]
[File]

IDAHO-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES (Do Not Include in Final Letter)

Key Idaho Considerations

• Idaho recognizes public policy exception under Sorensen v. Comm Tek
• Implied contract claims viable with proper handbook language
• Covenant of good faith and fair dealing recognized to limited extent
• 1-year IHRC filing deadline (very long compared to EEOC)
• Idaho is a deferral state for EEOC purposes - 300-day deadline
• Whistleblower protection statute (Section 6-2101) only covers public employees
• Workers' compensation retaliation provides fee-shifting
• Punitive damages require showing under Idaho Code Section 6-1604

Venue Options

• Idaho District Court (general jurisdiction)
• Federal Court (if federal claims or diversity jurisdiction)

Statute of Limitations

Key Idaho Cases

• Sorensen v. Comm Tek, Inc., 118 Idaho 664, 799 P.2d 70 (1990)
• Metcalf v. Intermountain Gas Co., 116 Idaho 622, 778 P.2d 744 (1989)
• Watson v. Idaho Falls Consol. Hosps., Inc., 111 Idaho 44, 720 P.2d 632 (1986)
• MacNeil v. Minidoka Mem. Hosp., 108 Idaho 588, 701 P.2d 208 (1985)
• Jackson v. Minidoka Irrigation Dist., 98 Idaho 330, 563 P.2d 54 (1977)