An employer may be liable under an implied contract theory where its policy conveys an offer that its employees accept and for which consideration is given. Here, the trial court granted summary judgment for plaintiff on both implied contract and promissory estoppel grounds. The resolution of this issue turns upon an interpretation of the District s policy. The interpretation of a written document is a question of law. If the language of the document is plain, its meaning clear, and no absurdity is involved, it must be enforced by the court as written.
Ambiguity exists only where there is uncertainty as to the meaning of the language.
Hudgeons v. Tenneco Oil Co. , supra . We will not torture words and phrases to create an ambiguity. See Hudgeons v. Tenneco Oil Co. , supra . Rather, we will consider the language used in light of the whole document and the District s entire policy scheme to ensure a harmonious and sensible result. With these principles in mind, we now turn to a consideration of the language in the policy.