Case Title: Reich v. Holiday Inn

Citation: 454 So. 2d 982

Docket Number: 

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 1984-07-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
454 So. 2d 982 (1984)
Constance R. REICH
v.
HOLIDAY INN and H.P. Eisenmann.
83-485.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
July 13, 1984.
Grover S. McLeod, Birmingham, for appellant.
William C. Wood of Norman, Fitzpatrick & Wood, Birmingham, for appellees.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Constance R. Reich sued her former employer, Holiday Inn, and her former supervisor, H.P. Eisenmann, alleging that she was wrongfully discharged from her job. It is undisputed that appellant's job status was that of an employee at will. The trial court dismissed the action, holding that her complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. We affirm.
The amended complaint alleges that Reich was a clerk at the Holiday Inn, Civic Center, in Birmingham, with the chief responsibility of auditing and paying those accounts that were due and owing. It also alleges that there existed a company policy or rule that forbade her from paying any invoices that were of a questionable nature. In June of 1983 she received several invoices that she determined were of a questionable nature and refused to pay them. She alleges that these invoices were from a dummy corporation set up by the defendants in order to defraud the stockholders of Holiday Inn, Inc., and the Internal Revenue Service.
Reich states in her amended complaint that she refused to pay the invoices out of fear that she would then become a party to the crime. Upon her failure to pay the invoices, she was fired.
The general rule in this state has been and still is that an employment contract at will may be terminated by either party, with or without cause or justification. We have held that this means a party may be discharged for a good reason, a wrong reason, or for no reason at all. Johnson v. Gary, 443 So. 2d 924, 926 (Ala.1983); Hinrichs v. Tranquilaire Hospital, 352 So. 2d 1130, 1131 (Ala.1977).
In Hinrichs we noted:
Hinrichs, supra, at 1131. See also, Meredith v. C.E. Walther, Inc., 422 So. 2d 761, 762 (Ala.1982).
This case presents nothing to justify the adoption of an exception to the longstanding and well-established rule of this jurisdiction.
The judgment of the trial court is hereby affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
TORBERT, C.J., and MADDOX, FAULKNER, ALMON, SHORES, EMBRY, and BEATTY, JJ., concur.
JONES and ADAMS, JJ., concur in the result.