Opinion ID: 1547929
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: At-Will Employee Claim

Text: Appellant Smith claims that the issue of whether she was an at-will employee remains in dispute. However, Ms. Smith has failed to controvert the facts set forth in the documents and affidavits submitted by Union Labor Life establishing that Ms. Smith was an at-will employee. It is well settled in the District of Columbia that an employment contract, absent evidence to the contrary, is terminable at the will of either party. Sorrells v. Garfinckel's, Brooks Bros., Miller & Rhoads, Inc., 565 A.2d 285, 289 (D.C.1989) (citations omitted). See also Adams v. George W. Cochran & Co., 597 A.2d 28, 30 (D.C.1991) (with a very limited exception, an employer may discharge an at-will employee at any time and for any reason, or for no reason at all) (citations omitted). Ms. Smith failed to present sufficient evidence of either an express or an implied contract of definite duration, and thus her employment at Union Labor Life was terminable at-will. Ms. Smith's response to Union Labor Life's summary judgment motion included opposition motions, her complaint, appellee's policy guidelines and an affidavit on her own behalf averring that she was hired as a management employee, and that she was given the incorrect guidelines by appellee. This response is plainly inadequate to defeat Union Labor Life's motion for summary judgment. Appellant cannot rest on the general allegations of her pleadings and her failure to provide support for her contention of a material dispute will result in the court's acceptance of a movant's statement as undisputed absent clear support for any such contention from the record. Vessels, supra, 531 A.2d at 1018; see also D.C.Super.Ct.Civ.R. 56(e) (an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the adverse party's pleading); D.C.Super.Ct.Civ.R. 12-I(k) (the Court may assume that facts as claimed by the moving party are admitted to exist without controversy except as and to the extent that such facts are ... controverted in a statement filed in opposition to the motion). Appellant failed to comply with Rules 56(e) or 12-I(k) in challenging appellee's summary judgment motion. Although this failure, in and of itself, is not fatal to appellant's claims, Miller v. Greater Southeast Community Hosp., 508 A.2d 927, 929 n. 4 (D.C.1986), we find, based on an independent review of the record, that the trial judge did not err in granting appellant's motion. Hill, supra, 589 A.2d at 921.