332 N.W.2d 774 (Wis. 1983)
In January 1978, the Handicapped Children's Education Board hired Elaine Lukaszewski to serve as a speech and language therapist at the Lightfoot School in Sheboygan Falls, approximately 45 miles from her home in Mequon.1 Lukaszewski commuted to work rather than relocating. During the spring term, the Board offered her a contract for the 1978-79 school year at an annual salary of $10,760, which she accepted.2
In August 1978, Lukaszewski received an offer from the Wee Care Day Care Center near her home for $13,000 annually.3 She notified the Board's director of special education of her intent to resign and submitted a letter of resignation, but the Board refused to release her from the contract.4 The Board's attorney sent letters directing her to return to work and warning the day care center of potential legal action.5
Lukaszewski returned to the Lightfoot School for the fall term but felt stressed. On September 8, 1978, after discussing her feelings with the director, she left the school and consulted her physician, who found elevated blood pressure readings up to 180/100 and advised that her condition would not improve unless the stressful situation was removed and that driving long distances was dangerous.67 On September 13, she submitted a resignation letter citing health concerns and subsequently obtained employment at the Wee Care Day Care Center.8
The Board immediately sought a replacement and hired the only qualified applicant, who required a salary $1,026.64 higher than Lukaszewski's due to greater experience.9 In December 1978, the Board sued Lukaszewski for breach of contract seeking the additional compensation amount.10 The trial court found a breach and awarded $1,026.64 in damages plus costs.11 The court of appeals affirmed the breach finding but reversed the damages award, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court granted review.12
Whether Elaine Lukaszewski breached her employment contract with the Handicapped Children's Education Board?13
Under Wisconsin law, an employee who resigns before an employment contract expires commits a breach unless a health danger justifies nonperformance.14 No excuse exists when the danger is caused by the employee or was foreseeable at contracting.15 Trial court findings of fact stand unless against the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence.16
Yes. Lukaszewski resigned before the 1978-79 contract term ended after accepting a higher-paying position at the Wee Care Day Care Center.17 The trial court found the resulting stress and hypertension self-induced by her attempted repudiation and the commute hazard self-created by her choice to live in Mequon rather than relocate.18 These findings rest on her own testimony and the sequence of events and are not against the great weight of the evidence.19
Lukaszewski breached the employment contract.20
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Day dissents because Lukaszewski's resignation for health reasons was justified.21 Her hypertension increased due to stress from the Board's refusal to release her from the contract.22 The doctor found her blood pressure at 180 over 100 and advised her to quit.23
Day contends that a medically certifiable condition caused by stress excuses performance regardless of whether the stress was self-induced or caused by the employer.24 The trial court's finding that the condition was self-induced does not alter the symptoms or remove the excuse.25 The majority misreads Jennings v. Lyons, which does not deny excuse for self-induced illness.26
The trial court's comments indicate rather than definitively find that she resigned for non-health reasons.27
Whether the Handicapped Children's Education Board suffered recoverable damages from any breach by Lukaszewski?28
Damages for breach of an employment contract restore the nonbreaching party's expectation interest. Therefore, damages include the additional cost of obtaining equivalent services, provided the injured party takes reasonable steps to mitigate by securing the least expensive qualified replacement.29
Yes. After Lukaszewski's departure the Board immediately recruited and hired the only qualified applicant, who commanded an annual salary $1,026.64 higher than the amount the Board had agreed to pay Lukaszewski.30 That additional expense was the direct and foreseeable result of the breach, and the Board's prompt hiring of the sole available candidate constituted reasonable mitigation.31
The Board suffered recoverable damages in the amount of the additional compensation paid to Lukaszewski's replacement.32