Case Title: Madden v. Omega Optical, Inc.

Citation: 165 Vt 306, 683 A.2d 386

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1996-07-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
Madden v. Omega Optical, Inc.  (94-654); 165 Vt 306; 683 A.2d 386

[Opinion Filed 12-Jul-1996]

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.


                                 No. 94-654


Lee K. Madden, et al.                             Supreme Court

                                                  On Appeal from
    v.                                            Windham Superior Court

Omega Optical, Inc.                               March Term, 1996


Richard W. Norton, J.

       Thomas W. Costello, John C. Mabie and Joel T. Faxon of Thomas W.
  Costello, P.C., Brattleboro, for plaintiffs-appellants

       J. Scott Cameron and David R. Putnam of Paterson & Walke, P.C.,
  Montpelier, for defendant-appellee


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


       ALLEN, C.J.   Plaintiffs appeal an order granting defendant summary
  judgment on their claims of breach of contract, wrongful discharge in
  violation of public policy, and promissory estoppel.  We affirm.

       This lawsuit arose when defendant, Omega Optical, Inc., instituted a
  new personnel policy requiring all its employees to sign a Confidentiality,
  Disclosure, and Noncompetition Agreement (Agreement).  The noncompetition
  portion of the Agreement prohibits an employee from participating in the
  thin-film, optical-coating business anywhere in the United States for a
  period of six months following termination of employment with defendant. 
  Initially, only employees hired after January 1, 1991 were required to sign
  the Agreement.  In August of 1991, after several employees quit to start a
  competing corporation, defendant changed the policy to require all
  employees to sign the Agreement as a condition of employment.  Plaintiffs,
  five Omega employees, refused to sign the Agreement and were terminated as
  a result.

       At the time plaintiffs were fired in August of 1991, they had been
  employed at Omega

 

  for between one and six years.  When plaintiffs accepted employment with
  defendant, an employee handbook did not exist.  In early 1990, however,
  defendant distributed a handbook to all employees.  The handbook contained
  a review procedure, which read, "[D]ismissal from Omega/Omicron will be
  considered after two unsatisfactory reviews."  The handbook also contained
  a disclaimer, which read, "[N]othing in this handbook or any other policy
  or communication changes the fact that employment is at-will for an
  indefinite period . . . ."

       Plaintiffs alleged that even though they may have been hired as
  at-will employees, defendant unilaterally modified their at-will status
  through its employee handbook and by creating a company-wide practice of
  not firing employees without just cause.  Plaintiffs argued that their
  termination for refusing to sign the noncompetition agreement did not
  constitute just cause, and therefore they were wrongfully discharged.  
  Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment and the trial court granted
  it, concluding that plaintiffs' evidence was insufficient to establish
  genuine issues of material fact.

                                I.

       In reviewing a grant of summary judgment, this Court applies the same
  standard as the trial court.  Ross v. Times Mirror, Inc., ___ Vt. ___, ___,