Opinion ID: 2743099
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: You must observe the suspect enter the section.

Text: b. You must observe the suspect remove the merchandise from the display and know exactly what that item is. c. If the item is concealed, you must observe that concealment and know exactly where it is. d. You must maintain continuous observation of the suspect and merchandise, from the display until he/she exits the store. Once concealed, observation of the concealment area, (where the item is on the person), must be continuously observed. e. You must, for purposes of safety, have another employee follow you out of th e store to act as a witness and to provide assistance, if necessary. (Emphasis omitted.) Non-policy stops are, according to the manual, less serious than either type of non-arrest apprehension. Accordingly, a non-policy stop “will be reviewed by the District Loss Prevention Manager . . . and will result in a verbal or written warning.” However, all “[n]on-policy apprehensions must be verbally reported to [the] District Loss Prevention -8- 6962 Manager immediately after the arrest[;] failure to report can and will result in termination.” The disciplinary guidelines further provide that: [A]ny of the following actions will result in immediate termination of employment: A. The [f]ailure to report any non-arrest apprehension within 1 hour of its occurrence. B. Any non-arrest apprehension made before the Loss Prevention person has been released from Phase 2 training. C. Any arrest made by a member of Loss Prevention who has not been released from Phase two where another qualified member of Loss Prevention was not physically present. D. Any gross disregard of Policy and or any grave lack of judgment that causes a non-arrest apprehension. E. Any continued or uncorrected lack of judgment / lack of fact which persists after re-training and education have been documented from previous incident. (Emphasis omitted.) Fred Meyer argues that, notwithstanding the detailed procedures described above, “no employee could believe that they would always be entitled to progressive discipline” because the manual contains “hedging terms.” For example, the manual provides that “termination of employment is always an option when the judgment of the individuals involved and their actions are so grievous and severe, that it places Fred Meyer at increased risk [of] civil liability.” The manual also provides that the listed grounds for termination are “in addition to [those listed in] the ‘Fred Meyer Employee Responsibilities’ form.” Fred Meyer argues that this language makes it clear that the company retains discretion to terminate employment without cause. -9- 6962 In Hoendermis v. Advanced Physical Therapy, Inc., we concluded that a policy manual did not give an employee a right to progressive discipline where the manual explicitly provided that the employer retained discretion not to follow the manual’s discipline procedures.11 That manual also “expressly provided that all . . . employees were employed at will and could be discharged for any reason.”12 Similarly, we concluded in Holland v. Union Oil Co. of California that a one-page memorandum, which included a non-exclusive list of prohibited conduct and provided that progressive discipline would be provided “[i]n most instances,” did not create a right to progressive discipline.13 In contrast, we held in Jones v. Central Peninsula General Hospital that a policy manual setting out “fifteen non-exclusive categories of acts or omissions that may result in termination for cause” was, as a matter of law, incorporated into an employment contract.14 Despite a one-sentence disclaimer stating that the manual “is not a contract of employment nor is it incorporated in any contract of employment,”15 the manual “create[d] the impression . . . that employees are to be provided with certain job protections.”16 And in Parker v. Mat-Su Council on Prevention of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse, we concluded that an employer’s “personnel manual which outline[d] various 11 251 P.3d at 355-56. 12 Id. at 355. 13 993 P.2d at 1032. 14 779 P.2d 783, 788-89 (Alaska 1989). 15 Id. at 787. 16 Id. at 788. -10- 6962 disciplinary polices and procedures and provide[d] that involuntary termination will occur only for cause” modified an employment agreement.14 This case falls somewhere between these precedents. Fred Meyer’s policy manual does not include language indicating that it may decline to follow its disciplinary procedures as it pleases. Although it is true that the manual provides that “termination of employment is always an option when the judgment of the individuals involved and their actions are so grievous and severe, that it places Fred Meyer at increased risk [of] civil liability,” that language merely creates an exception to progressive discipline in cases where an employee’s actions have exposed Fred Meyer to a risk of liability; it does not render the disciplinary procedures discretionary in all instances. And given the sheer level of detail contained in the manual, any language suggesting that Fred Meyer policy is not legally binding would need to be very prominent to be effective.15 It is also true, as Fred Meyer points out, that the list of “causes for immediate termination without prior warning” is “in addition to the ‘Fred Meyer Employee Responsibilities’ form.” (Emphasis omitted.) But that language does not suggest that Fred Meyer may terminate employment without notice for any reason.16 It merely emphasizes that another Fred Meyer policy form, which also applies to loss prevention employees, lists other reasons for termination without warning. 14 813 P.2d 665, 666-67 (Alaska 1991). 15 See Jones, 779 P.2d at 788 (“[A] one-sentence disclaimer, followed by 85 pages of detailed text covering policies, rules, regulations, and definitions, does not unambiguously and conspicuously inform the employee that the manual is not part of the employee’s contract of employment.”). 16 Cf. Holland, 993 P.2d at 1032 (explaining that a one-page memorandum, which included a non-exclusive list of prohibited conduct and provided that progressive discipline would be provided “[i]n most instances,” did not create a right to progressive discipline). -11- 6962 Therefore, there is a triable question of fact whether a reasonable person would believe that the provisions of the loss prevention policy manual are binding. Fred Meyer argues that, even if the policy manual does give Becker enforceable contract rights, its decision to terminate Becker’s employment without notice was justified by Becker’s alleged misconduct. But the superior court did not reach this question in its order granting summary judgment.17 We conclude that this issue should first be addressed by the superior court.