Case Title: Mooney v. Harco Drug, Inc.

Citation: 611 So. 2d 235

Docket Number: 1901990

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 1992-07-31T00:00:00Z

Document:
611 So. 2d 235 (1992)
Leon MOONEY and Connie Mooney
v.
HARCO DRUG, INC., and Jimmy Harrison, Jr.
1901990.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
July 31, 1992.
Rehearing Denied December 18, 1992.
Paula I. Cobia of Bolt, Isom, Jackson & Bailey, P.C., Anniston, for appellants.
Arthur F. Fite III and Carl E. Underwood III of Merrill, Porch, Dillon & Fite, Anniston, for appellees.
ADAMS, Justice.
Leon and Connie Mooney appeal from a summary judgment in favor of Harco Drug, Inc., and Jimmy Harrison, Jr., president of Harco, on the Mooneys' claims of breach of employment contract and fraud. We affirm.
In October 1989, Harco Drug, Inc., purchased eight Super-X Drug stores. Leon Mooney was the manager of the Super-X store at Oxford Mall in Oxford, Alabama, which was one of the eight stores purchased by Harco. His wife Connie Mooney was a part-time pharmacist technician at the same location. Prior to the purchase, Jimmy Harrison met with the Super-X managers of the eight stores and spoke with them regarding new management.[1] According to the Mooneys, Harrison represented to the managers that they would retain their former positions after Harco's acquisition and that Harco would recognize the benefits that the employees had been receiving from Super-X, with the exception that there would be a cut in vacation time. At that meeting, the Mooneys contend, Mr. Harrison represented to the managers that the employees would be terminated only because of dishonesty or rudeness to a customer. They acknowledge, however, that they were told that some "expense cuts" might have to be made in January, and they admit that they did not inquire further into the meaning of the statements regarding expense cuts. They also stated that at the meeting Harrison informed the managers that the stores would be receiving additional inventory and that an advertising campaign would be launched for the Christmas season. The managers were then given copies of the Harco employee handbook.
*236 According to Harco, the Oxford Mall store's sales for 1989 decreased by 18% from the previous year, despite the fact that it received much inventory. When considering ways to cut expenses at the Oxford store, Harco noted that Leon Mooney held the highest paid manager's position of all the Harco stores, with a salary-to-sales percentage of 14%, which was 2% higher than Harco management liked for its stores. In addition, Connie Mooney was the highest paid part-time employee in all the Harco stores. Harrison stated in his affidavit that following the Christmas season the figures for the Harco stores were examined and it was thereafter determined that Leon Mooney and Connie Mooney should be terminated for economic reasons. Considering their high salaries, in light of the fact that Leon Mooney had been rated for Harco by his former employer with a "C minus" on job performance and Connie Mooney had received a "C" rating,[2] the Mooneys' employment was terminated. Harco contends that both positions were eliminated and that the positions of pharmacist and manager were combined at the Oxford store. Connie Mooney's position was eliminated altogether. Leon Mooney was given six weeks' severance pay.
Bell v. South Central Bell, 564 So. 2d 46, 48 (Ala.1990).
The Mooneys contend that the handbook given to them by Harco created an implied employment contract and that they could not be terminated without cause. We disagree. We have read the entire employee manual and we conclude that, at best, it gives an optimistic view of employment with Harco. Although the Harco handbook did not contain an express provision indicating that it was not to be considered a contract (as did the document in our recent case of Hanson v. New Technology, Inc., 594 So. 2d 96 (Ala.1992)), none of the language contained therein, however, is specific enough to be construed as creating a contract with Harco employees. The handbook, in pertinent part, states:
Nowhere in the manual is there any specific procedure for terminating an employee, and the statement of disciplinary offenses that could result in termination indicates that the list is not intended to be all-inclusive. There is simply no feasible way that the Harco handbook could be interpreted as a contract for employment for an indefinite time, subject only to termination for cause. Nowhere does the handbook even imply that the disciplinary offenses comprise the only ways in which an employee of Harco can lose his job. The handbook itself is too general and merely purports to answer questions that Harco employees might have about their employment.
Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. v. Campbell, 512 So. 2d 725, 734 (Ala.1987).
Id., at 731. The employee handbook in this case contains no section dealing with termination or the process of termination, as did the handbook in Hoffman-La Roche. The Hoffman-La Roche handbook stated specifically:
This Court wrote in Hoffman-La Roche:
Id., at 736-37. (Footnotes omitted.) Such specificity is not found in the Harco handbook and, therefore, the trial court did not err in entering the summary judgment in favor of Harco.
AFFIRMED.
HORNSBY, C.J., and ALMON, STEAGALL and INGRAM, JJ., concur.
[1]  Although Connie Mooney was not a manager, she did attend the managers' meeting
[2]  These were the lowest ratings given to any Super-X employees in the newly acquired stores.