Opinion ID: 5241
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Mississippi Employment at Will Doctrine

Text: Mississippi has long adhered to the common law rule that where there is no employment contract (or where there is a contract which does not specify the term of the worker's employment), the relation[ship] may be terminated at will by either party. Perry v. Sears, Roebuck, & Co., 508 So.2d 1086, 1088 (Miss. 1987). The employment at will doctrine was explained in Kelly v. Mississippi Valley Gas Co., 397 So.2d 874, 874-75 (Miss. 1981), as follows: The employee can quit at will; the employer can terminate at will. This means that either the employer or the employee may have a good reason, a wrong reason, or no reason for terminating the employment contract. Id. Mississippi has rigidly adhered to this rule since 1858. See Butler v. Smith & Tharp, 35 Miss. 457, 464 (1858).1 Acknowledging this doctrine to be controlling, Solomon nonetheless attempts to escape its application by arguing that she 0. The only exception to this rule appears to be that in certain extremely limited circumstances, contractual obligations may arise through an employee handbook which expressly intends to modify the terms of employment at will. Perry, 508 So.2d at 1088. Other than this, the Mississippi Supreme Court has declined opportunity to carve out any exception to the common law rule. Robinson v. Coastal Family Health Center, Inc., 756 F. Supp. 958, 961 (S.D. Miss. 1990); see Perry, 508 So.2d at 1089 (refusing to adopt a public policy exception to Mississippi’s employment at will doctrine). 5 had a specific contract of employment with Walgreens evidenced by the letters from Grauer and Earnest, and the Walgreens employment manual and handbook. Despite Solomon's arguments, we find the facts clearly indicate that the relationship between herself and Walgreens was at will. Solomon's original employment application from 1985, signed by Solomon herself, specifically states as follows: 3. I understand that my employment with Walgreen Co. is for no definite period and may be terminated at any time, with or without cause, and without any previous notice, at the option of either Walgreen Co. or me. I further understand that no employee, manager or other agent or representative of Walgreen Co., other than its Chief Executive Officer, has any authority to enter into any agreement for employment for any specified time, or to make any agreement or amendment contrary to the foregoing. This clearly indicates that the relationship between the two parties was at will.2 Solomon argues that the letters supplied at her request by Grauer and Earnest modified her at-will status and gave her a specific contract of employment with Walgreens. Under Mississippi law, we fail to see how this can be so. As the facts state, the two Walgreens managers provided Solomon with letters stating that she would be guaranteed a specific number of hours. First of all, by the unambiguous terms of Solomon’s signed employment application, Solomon had express notice that no manager, such as 0. In the brief she submitted to this court, Solomon states that the letters supplied by Grauer and Earnest would supersede the dictates of the employment application. She fails, however, to cite any authority for this proposition or explain why the letters would have this effect. 6 Grauer or Earnest, had the authority to modify her at-will status by employing her for a definite term. Second, while a specific number of hours is given, no definite length of term of employment- -nor any other details of her allegedly guaranteed position-- appear in either letter. Length of employment is a substantial term and must be included in a writing offered to show a contract of employment for a definite term in order for the statute of frauds to be satisfied. Bowers Window & Door Co., Inc. v. Dearman, 549 So.2d 1309, 1313 (Miss. 1989); see Miss. Code Ann. § 15-3-1(d) (1972). Solomon tenuously attempts to argue that this critical missing element is supplied by Grauer’s and Earnest's references to 30 hours and 35 to 40 hours of employment. We fail to see how this reference establishes a definite term of employment. In the brief she submitted to this court, Solomon contends that this statement of hours establishes a definite period of employment [w]hether the term be one hour or one month, and that [w]hether the plaintiff’s employment were for one day or six months, the length of that employment is not relevant. The argument Solomon is attempting to advance is far from definite; she herself cannot devine a definite term of employment from the nebulous writings of Grauer and Earnest.3 Employment of an agent for an indefinite time is terminable at will under Mississippi law. Butler, 35 Miss. at 464. 0. We note that Solomon ultimately was employed at the Tupelo Walgreens from June 1, 1991 until the Tupelo store closed on August 31, 1991. This encompasses more than the 30-40 total hours of employment she asserts she was guaranteed. 7 Without a written confirmation of length of employment, Solomon remained an employee at will subject to dismissal for a good reason, a wrong reason, or no reason at all. See Robinson v. Coastal Family Health Center, Inc., 756 F. Supp. 958, 961 (S.D. Miss. 1990), citing Kelly, 397 So.2d at 874-75. We therefore conclude that the writings of Grauer and Earnest are much too indefinite to establish a definite term of employment and satisfy the statute of frauds. Solomon additionally claims that Walgreens’ personnel policy and orientation manuals provide any missing terms of her guaranteed contract of 30 to 40 hours of employment in Tupelo, thereby satisfying the statute of frauds and establishing the existence of an employment contract. Under Mississippi law, an employee handbook may, under certain conditions, become part of an agreement between an employer and employee. See Perry, 508 So.2d at 1088-89. Based on an examination of both Walgreens manuals, however, Solomon's assertion fails. The orientation manual, ?Welcome to Walgreens,” expressly states in nonobligatory language that it is an aid to give the employee a better understanding of his or her job, and that [t]he policies and statements in this booklet, and in any other booklets, manuals, or publications of Walgreens are not a contract of employment or a contract of continued employment. The personnel policy manual likewise contains no promises of tenure, nor any other terms that could possibly be construed as modifying an employee’s at-will status. Solomon wholly fails to cite any specific portions of the manuals 8 supporting her claim. Under Mississippi law, nothing in these publications could be construed by a reasonable fact finder as modifying Solomon's at-will status, especially in the face of the express disclaimer contained in the orientation manual. See Perry, 508 So.2d at 1088-89. In sum, nothing in the record would lead a reasonable juror to conclude under Mississippi law that Solomon possessed secured or guaranteed employment with Walgreens upon her arrival in Mississippi. Prior to her arrival in Tupelo, there had been no discussion or confirmation of a start date, salary, position, nor any other aspect of employment--terms which would normally be considered of great importance to anyone attempting to secure a job and relocate her family. Based on these facts, it was manifestly unrealistic of Solomon to assume that she had a guaranteed job upon her arrival in Mississippi. At best, she had an invitation to discuss the possibility of employment at the Tupelo Walgreens once she moved to Mississippi. Even if the Tupelo store did have a position available for her upon her arrival, it still would have been on an at-will basis. What may be perceived as corporate callousness towards a loyal worker is no basis for a legal cause of action. See Perry, 508 So.2d at 1087. As has been noted by the Supreme Court of Mississippi, [t]he Golden Rule, unfortunately, is not a rule of law. Id. Viewing the the record in the light most favorable to Solomon, we fail to see how a rational trier of fact could find that an employment contract existed between the parties.