Opinion ID: 734472
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Voluntary termination of employment.

Text: 27 (2) An employee absent for three consecutive days without permission will be regarded as a voluntary resignation. 28 (3) Discharge for just cause: This could include violation of rules, unsatisfactory work performance, or improper conduct. 29 .... 30 (Emphasis added). A common sense reading of the employee handbook defeats Rhymer's contention. The phrase mentioning just cause was placed in the employee handbook under the LOSS OF SERVICE heading. The handbook defines service as the time that the employee has worked for the Company. It gives the employee certain preferences or ranking when decisions must be made in regard to promotions, reduction in forces and determination of eligibility for the various benefits. (Emphasis added). Discharge for just cause is simply one of the ways in which service time can be lost. Thus, the phrase is not used as an explicit just cause provision which would limit the company's ability to terminate employees. Indeed, nowhere in the handbook does it say that an employee can be discharged only for just cause. 31 In addition, Virginia recognizes the concept of mutuality of engagement. See Town of Vinton v. City of Roanoke, 80 S.E.2d 608, 617 (Va.1954) (noting that there must be absolute mutuality of engagement, so that each party has the right to hold the other to a positive agreement.) (citations omitted). Notions of fundamental fairness underlie the concept of mutuality which extends a corresponding freedom to the employer. Miller, 362 S.E.2d at 917. It is hornbook law that a contract terminable at the will of one party is terminable at the will of the other.... Hicks v. Freeman, 397 F.2d 193, 194-95 (4th Cir.1968). Rhymer testified in his deposition that he would have been free to quit his job with Yokohama anytime he wished. He also admitted that he had looked at the employee handbook and found no guarantee of employment. In light of the language in the employee handbook and Rhymer's admissions during his deposition, we agree with the district court's determination that Rhymer has not offered sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that he was an at-will employee.