The Idaho Supreme Court issued a split decision in *York v. Kemper Northwest, Inc.*, partially affirming and partially vacating a district court's judgment in a complex employment contract dispute involving alleged stock compensation agreements.
The case, decided January 20, 2026, centers on Eric York's claim that he had a contract with Kemper Northwest, Inc., an Idaho corporation, and one of its owners, Matthew Medeiros, to receive company stock in exchange for his commitment to remain employed through a specified date. York fulfilled his end of the agreement by staying with the company through the required period, but when no stock was provided, he filed suit.
York brought four separate claims based on the purported stock agreement: promissory estoppel, fraud, and two breach of contract claims. The employment dispute also involved additional defendants Eric Claassen and Chad Belvoir, both individuals connected to the case.
Following a bench trial in Ada County District Court, Judge Peter G. Barton ruled against York on all claims, finding in favor of Medeiros and Kemper Northwest. The district court also awarded attorney fees to the defendants, adding financial consequences to York's unsuccessful lawsuit.
Dissatisfied with the outcome, York appealed to the Idaho Supreme Court, challenging the district court's comprehensive ruling against him. The appeal was heard during the court's August 2025 term in Boise, with Justice Moeller writing the opinion for the high court.
The Supreme Court's decision represents a nuanced outcome that neither party can claim as a complete victory. By affirming the judgment "in part" while vacating other portions, the court indicated that some aspects of the district court's ruling were legally sound while others required correction or reconsideration.
The case has been remanded to the Ada County District Court for entry of an amended judgment, suggesting that the legal issues were complex enough to require further clarification at the trial level. This remand indicates that while the Supreme Court disagreed with certain aspects of the lower court's ruling, it did not reverse the case entirely.
The dispute highlights the complexities that can arise in employment relationships when stock compensation or equity agreements are involved. Employment contracts involving equity compensation have become increasingly common, particularly in competitive industries where companies seek to retain key personnel through long-term incentive structures.
York was represented by Givens Pursley LLP of Boise, with Donald Z. Gray arguing before the Supreme Court. Kemper Northwest was represented by Exceed Legal of Boise, with Erik J. Bolinder presenting oral arguments. Matthew Medeiros retained separate counsel, Duke Evett, PLLC of Boise, with Keely E. Duke arguing on his behalf.
The involvement of multiple defense attorneys suggests the complexity of the relationships and potential conflicts between the various defendants in the case. The fact that Medeiros retained separate counsel from Kemper Northwest indicates potential divergent interests between the individual and corporate defendants.
The case illustrates several important legal principles in employment law. Promissory estoppel claims require plaintiffs to show they reasonably relied on a promise to their detriment, while fraud claims must demonstrate intentional misrepresentation or concealment of material facts. Breach of contract claims require proof of a valid contract and its breach.
Employment disputes involving equity compensation often turn on whether clear, enforceable agreements existed. Courts typically examine whether the terms were sufficiently definite, whether consideration was provided by both parties, and whether the parties intended to create binding legal obligations.
The Supreme Court's mixed ruling suggests that some of York's legal theories may have had merit while others did not meet the required legal standards. The partial vacation of the judgment could relate to various aspects of the case, including the scope of damages, the propriety of attorney fee awards, or specific findings of fact or conclusions of law.
For employers, the case serves as a reminder of the importance of clearly documenting equity compensation arrangements and ensuring that any promises regarding stock or ownership interests are properly formalized. Verbal agreements or informal understandings about equity compensation can lead to costly litigation even when employers ultimately prevail.
The remand to the district court means the litigation will continue, with Judge Barton required to enter an amended judgment consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion. This process may involve recalculating damages, reconsidering attorney fee awards, or modifying specific findings based on the appellate court's guidance.
The case demonstrates how employment disputes can evolve into complex litigation involving multiple legal theories and substantial appellate review. While the ultimate resolution remains pending following remand, the Supreme Court's partial affirmance and partial vacation suggests a carefully considered analysis of competing legal claims and evidence presented at trial.