Title: Loghry v. Unicover Corp.

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

Loghry v. Unicover Corp.1994 WY 73878 P.2d 510Case Number: 93-210Decided: 07/20/1994Supreme Court of Wyoming
Corey 
LOGHRY,

Appellant 
(Plaintiff),

v.

UNICOVER 
CORPORATION,

Appellee 
(Defendant).

 

Representing 
Appellant:

Harold 
F. Buck of Buck Law Offices, Cheyenne.

Representing 
Appellee:

W. 
Perry Dray and Brandin Hay of Dray, Madison & Thomson, P.C., 
Cheyenne.

 

Before 
GOLDEN, C.J., THOMAS, MACY and TAYLOR, JJ., and CARDINE, J. 
(Retired).

MACY, 
Justice.

[¶1]      Appellant Corey 
Loghry appeals from the district court's partial summary judgment which 
determined that a disclaimer of contract in a personnel handbook was conspicuous 
and that Loghry was an "at-will" employee whom Appellee Unicover Corporation 
could discharge with or without having cause and without adhering to an internal 
disciplinary process.

[¶2]      We 
affirm.

[¶3]      Loghry presents 
these issues:

Summary 
judgment was erroneously entered to determine adversely, as a matter of law, 
Plaintiff's employment termination claims which rights were claimed to arise 
from the employer's Personnel Policy Handbook and the understanding of 
Plaintiff/Employee regarding her employment status when discharged without 
notice or hearing to arise from:

A. 
Express contract;

B. 
Implied contract regarding employee termination; or

C. 
Promissory estoppel.

 

[¶4]      Unicover brings 
these questions for our review:

I. 
Was Appellant Corey Loghry employed at will with Appellee Unicover Corporation, 
subject to discharge at any time for any reason?

II. 
Was Appellant Corey Loghry's appeal of a W.R.C.P. 54(b) final order untimely, so 
as to deprive this Court of jurisdiction to hear this 
appeal?

[¶5]      Loghry was 
discharged from her employment with Unicover after she reported what she 
believed to be a violation of Unicover's policy regarding trade secrets and 
confidentiality of company operations. She filed a complaint in the district 
court on March 12, 1993, alleging that she had been discharged from her 
employment in violation of the contractual rights which arose under Unicover's 
personnel handbook. Unicover answered the complaint and filed a motion for a 
partial summary judgment. The district court granted a partial summary judgment 
on June 7, 1993, in favor of Unicover, finding that Loghry was an "at-will" 
employee and that Unicover's disclaimer, which was attached to its personnel 
handbook and which had been acknowledged by Loghry, was conspicuous and 
precluded any alteration of Loghry's "at-will" status. The district court also 
determined that, in accordance with W.R.C.P. 54(b), no just reason existed for 
delay and directed that a final judgment be entered, making that partial summary 
judgment immediately appealable. 10 CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT ET AL., FEDERAL PRACTICE 
AND PROCEDURE § 2654 (1983). We note, however, that a W.R.C.P. 54(b) 
certification is subject to review in this Court for a determination as to 
whether certification would further the interests of judicial economy and the 
sound administration of the appellate process. Id., at § 
2659.

[¶6]      On June 12, 1993, 
Loghry moved to amend her complaint. According to the certificate of service 
attached to the motion to amend the complaint, Loghry mailed a copy of the 
motion to Unicover on that date; however, the motion was not stamped as being 
filed in the district court until July 13, 1993, twenty-one days after the 
resistance to the motion had been filed. On July 19, 1993, Loghry filed a motion 
for reconsideration of the partial summary judgment. Not only was that motion 
filed untimely, but the time for taking an appeal from that partial summary 
judgment had expired on July 7, 1993. W.R.C.P. 59; W.R.A.P. 2.01. On July 22, 
1993, Loghry filed a motion for relief from the judgment or, in the alternative, 
to modify the judgment under W.R.C.P. 60. That motion was also untimely filed 
because it had not been filed within a reasonable time after the judgment had 
been entered. W.R.C.P. 60(b). The district court entered an order on August 18, 
1993, stating that it had erroneously included the W.R.C.P. 54(b) certification 
in the partial summary judgment, denying the motion to reconsider the partial 
summary judgment, and granting Loghry's motion to amend her complaint. Loghry 
filed her amended complaint,1 alleging three claims for relief: 
breach of contract, promissory estoppel regarding written policies, and 
promissory estoppel regarding oral representations made by a Unicover officer. 
Unicover answered that complaint and again filed a motion for a partial summary 
judgment. The district court entered a final order on September 13, 1993, 
granting a partial summary judgment in favor of Unicover to the same effect as 
was granted in its original judgment and including a W.R.C.P. 54(b) 
certification. Loghry filed a timely notice of appeal from the second partial 
summary judgment. The district court stayed the trial on the remaining claim in 
this matter on December 1, 1993, pending resolution of this 
appeal.

[¶7]      We must first 
determine whether this appeal should be dismissed because Loghry failed to take 
an appeal from the first partial summary judgment. If she had elected to file an 
appeal from that judgment, she would have had to have done so within thirty days 
of the entry of the first partial summary judgment. W.R.A.P. 2.01. We are unable 
to find any instructive precedents or legal reasoning which can be applied to 
the rather muddled course this case has followed to date. Since we are unable to 
conclude that the appeal under consideration was untimely filed, we hold that we 
have jurisdiction to consider the matters presented.

[¶8]      Unicover contends 
that the disclaimer to its personnel handbook which it issued to Loghry was 
conspicuous and served to preclude the creation of any contractual rights and to 
fully preserve Loghry's status as an "at-will" employee who could be discharged 
with or without cause. "In Wyoming, employment is presumed to be at-will; 
however, `[a] handbook may change the employer's unfettered right to discharge 
an employee.'" Sanchez v. Life Care Centers of America, Inc., 855 P.2d 1256, 1257 (Wyo. 1993) (quoting Leithead v. American Colloid Company, 721 P.2d 1059, 1062 (Wyo. 1986), and citing Alexander v. Phillips Oil 
Company, 707 P.2d 1385 (Wyo. 1985); and Mobil Coal Producing, Inc. v. 
Parks, 704 P.2d 702 (Wyo. 1985)). See also Lincoln v. Wackenhut 
Corporation, 867 P.2d 701 (Wyo. 1994).

[¶9]      Loghry contends 
that the personnel handbook required her to undertake an obligation and a 
responsibility to protect trade secrets and confidential matters, to prevent 
them from being disclosed outside of Unicover, and to immediately report any 
incident to Unicover's director of security. Loghry alleged that an incident 
came to her attention, that she reported the incident to a Unicover officer, and 
that she was discharged for having made the very report which she was required 
to make by the personnel handbook. Loghry also alleged that Unicover did not 
accomplish the discharge in accordance with its normal disciplinary 
process.

[¶10]   The issue which we must decide is 
not whether Loghry's allegations stated a claim of unfairness on Unicover's part 
but is, rather, whether the disclaimer contained in, or attached to, Unicover's 
personnel handbook was sufficiently conspicuous. In Sanchez, we held that 
resolution of an issue such as this depends upon the construction of the 
purported disclaimer, along with the other provisions in the handbook which are 
in the nature of disclaimers. In final result, we held that the handbook at 
issue in Sanchez did not contain a conspicuous disclaimer:

The 
operative language in the disclaimer is not bold lettered; it is buried in 
introductory paragraphs. It is not designed to attract attention and is stated 
in language which does not tell the employee what he needs to know. We are 
reluctant to specify language and the placement of a disclaimer in order that it 
be effective. Perhaps this could be accomplished in numerous ways. Additionally, 
the handbook listed misconduct that could result in discharge, thus implying 
that cause is required. Detailing stages of progressive discipline results in a 
further implication that cause is required to discharge. Most likely a lawyer 
would have told appellant that, under her employment arrangement, she could be 
discharged without cause. An employee should not have to hire a lawyer to learn 
that.

855 P.2d  at 1259 (citation omitted).

[¶11]   In addition to receiving a copy of 
the personnel handbook, Loghry received a separate 8.5" x 11" page which 
contained a disclaimer and which she was required to sign. We reproduce that 
page as an appendix to this opinion to demonstrate its forthrightness. In 
addition, the "General Provisions" segment of the personnel handbook, which was 
prominently placed at the beginning of the Personnel Policies, contained this 
language:

The 
provisions set down in writing in this booklet apply to all employees of The 
Unicover Corporation and its subsidiaries, including full-time, part-time, and 
temporary employees, as applicable. These policies replace all previous versions 
of the Unicover Personnel Policies. The contents of this handbook are presented 
as a matter of information only. The purpose of these policies is to provide 
general guidance about the personnel procedures, expectations and benefits 
available at Unicover Corporation. The Company reserves the right to modify, 
revoke, suspend, terminate, or change any or all of these plans, policies or 
procedures in whole or in part, at any time, with or without notice. 

It 
is the responsibility of the Company to administer the provisions of this 
handbook and to make judgements about the policies set forth in this handbook. 
Discretion is reserved in the Company to interpret the language and intent of 
any provision and to determine an employee's eligibility for 
benefits.

The 
language used in this handbook is not intended to create, nor is it to be 
construed to constitute, a contract between the Company and any one or all of 
its employees. You have been hired as an at will employee, and just as you may 
voluntarily leave at any time, your employment and compensation may be 
terminated, with or without cause, and with or without notice, at any time by 
the Company in its sole discretion. There are no promises, express or implied, 
for continued employment and no one except the Board of Directors of the Company 
is authorized to waive or to modify these conditions of employment. Where 
differences exist between the printed edition of this handbook and Company 
policy, the latter will govern.

Abiding 
by Company policies is a condition of your employment and failure to do so is 
sufficient grounds for disciplinary action or for termination of employment. 
Therefore, you are again reminded that if you have any question about any 
Company policy or procedure, or you wish to confirm the current Company policy 
in a particular situation, you should consult with your supervisor, the Vice 
President of Human Resources or an officer of the Company.

Section 
29 of the Personnel Policies, entitled "Disciplinary Warnings," 
provided:

(a) 
Disciplinary Warning: Management may, at its discretion, verbally or in writing, 
discipline any employee for behavior or performance which is unacceptable to the 
Company's interests or which in any way impedes or fails to advance the 
operation of the Company. Disciplinary warning is the Company's normal way of 
providing a second chance for an employee to correct behavior or performance 
which is unacceptable to the operation of the Company, although instances may 
occur in which it is not possible to issue such a warning, or where no prior 
warning is considered appropriate. If an employee's behavior or performance is 
not corrected following a warning, the employee may be dismissed without further 
notice.

(b) 
In order to dismiss an employee, the Company is not required to first give the 
employee any disciplinary warning, verbal or written, or to otherwise provide 
any advance notice of the dismissal.

[¶12]   We apply the standards established 
in Sanchez, as well as in the antecedent decisions upon which 
Sanchez was grounded, and hold that the Personnel Policies (1990) 
contained in the personnel handbook clearly indicated that Loghry had been 
employed as an "at-will" employee who could have been discharged at any time, 
without cause, without notice, and without a hearing. While the print in the 
disclaimer (acknowledgment form) was not in BOLD FACE TYPE as was the 
case in Lincoln, it was large and clear and made even more prominent by 
its size in juxtaposition to the print in the personnel handbook (a 5.5" x 8" 
booklet). The other provisions in the personnel handbook which were in the 
nature of disclaimers were also clear and intelligible.

[¶13]   Affirmed. 

APPENDIX

Footnotes

1 Loghry's amended complaint and its certificate of service were both 
dated August 18, 1993, but the filed date stamp appearing on the amended 
complaint shows that it was filed in the district court on August 17, 1993, one 
day before the district court entered and filed its order which granted Loghry's 
motion to amend her complaint.