The efficacy of plaintiff's appeal rests on the first requirement, i.e., whether the April 19 memorandum, and the employee manual contained a promise clear enough that plaintiff would reasonably believe that it should report incidents of harassment without being penalized in any way. After carefully reviewing the memorandum, we conclude that it stated more than just a general policy or employer expectations. The memorandum pronounces that defendant would not tolerate any harassment, including sexual harassment of any kind. Defendant emphatically states that harassment is a major offense that can result in suspension or discharge of an offender. Clearly, this states a promise by defendant to end any harassment employees may experience.
Defendant relies on the employees to report any incidents of harassment.
The April 19 memorandum was distributed to all the employees. We believe it is reasonable for plaintiff to find an offer was made, an offer which was accepted. Plaintiff, relying on defendant's policy statement, carried out his contractual obligations by reporting incidents of sexual harassment. Accordingly, we find that sexual harassment policy was a contractual right of plaintiff under Duldulao. That said, we must now turn to the question of whether such a breach of contract claim is precluded by the Act.