Opinion ID: 802001
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Terms of Mr. Ribeau’s Express Contract

Text: Although we reject Mr. Ribeau’s implied-contract theory, we must determine whether his express employment contract created a legitimate claim of entitlement to a pre-termination hearing before the Board. If an unambiguous written contract exists, Kansas courts “will not imply an additional term.” Havens v. Safeway Stores, 678 P.2d 625, 629-30 (Kan. 1984). “When a contract is complete, unambiguous, and free from uncertainty, parol evidence of prior or contemporaneous agreements or understandings tending to vary the terms of the contract evidenced by the writing is inadmissible.” Decatur Cnty. Feed Yard, Inc. v. Fahey, 974 P.2d 569, 574 (Kan. 1999) (quotations omitted). A contract may incorporate an extraneous writing by reference, however, and the writing “becomes a part of the contract only so far as to effectuate the specific purpose intended.” Starr v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 75 P.3d 266, 269 (Kan. Ct. App. 2003). Mr. Ribeau had an express employment contract stating that he “may be terminated . . . at any time, for any reason.” Aplt. Appx. at 60. The contract also provided that Mr. Ribeau “agree[d] to observe, enforce, and be directed by rules and regulations adopted by the Board.” Id. Mr. Ribeau argues that the Handbook contains “rules and regulations adopted by the Board” and that it is thus incorporated by reference -10- into his employment contract. We agree and look to the Handbook to determine what rules and regulations governed Mr. Ribeau’s employment. Mr. Ribeau contends that three Handbook provisions support his claim that he was entitled to a pre-termination hearing before the Board. The provisions state that (1) the superintendent may suspend employees “until the suspension is resolved by [B]oard action”; (2) the “[B]oard may terminate a classified employee at any time, with or without cause”; and (3) an employee may file a complaint with a “supervisor concerning a school rule, regulation, policy or decision” and appeal the supervisor’s decision to the superintendent, whose decision is final. Id. at 68 (emphases added). None of these provisions, however, provides for a pre-termination hearing before the Board. The first provision relates to suspension, not termination, and does not contain language entitling employees to a Board hearing. The second provision also does not provide for a pre-termination hearing. To the contrary, under this provision the Board may terminate an employee “at any time . . . without cause,” which indicates that the Board may terminate an employee without holding a pre-termination hearing. Finally, the third provision, which allows employees to file grievances with supervisors and the superintendent, does not mention the Board or a pre-termination hearing.7 In his reply brief, Mr. Ribeau also appears to argue that the Handbook provisions, 7 In addition, Mr. Ribeau fails to highlight other relevant portions of the Handbook. For example, one provision states that “[a]ll classified employees are employed on an ‘atwill’ basis . . . and may be dismissed at any time.” Aplt. Appx. at 70. -11- read together, are ambiguous as to whether he was entitled to a pre-termination Board hearing. He suggests that because the Handbook confers termination power on the Board, and because an employee can challenge termination in the grievance process, the Handbook could be read as requiring an appeal to the Board as the final step of a grievance challenging a termination. See Aplt. Reply Br. at 14. He is wrong. First, as previously noted, the Handbook authorizes the Board to terminate employees, but it says nothing about a pre-termination Board hearing. Instead, it declares that “[t]he Board may terminate a classified employee at any time . . . without cause,” Aplt. Appx. at 68 (emphases added), and that “[a]ll classified employees are employed on an ‘at will’ basis . . . and may be dismissed at any time,” id. at 70 (emphases added). Second, the grievance provision does not apply to terminations. It permits an employee to file a grievance with a supervisor,8 but someone who has been terminated is no longer an employee and no longer has a supervisor. In addition, the Handbook places the final grievance decision with the superintendent, but it places the termination decision with the Board. See Aplt. Appx. at 68. Third, even if, as Mr. Ribeau argues, the Handbook could be read as allowing a termination to be grieved and as providing an appeal to the Board as the final step, he cannot overcome the lack of any authorization of a pre-termination Board hearing in the 8 Under the Handbook’s grievance provision, an “employee may file a complaint with [a] supervisor concerning a . . . decision that affects the employee.” Aplt. Appx. at 68. -12- Handbook. “Before a contract is determined to be ambiguous, the language must be given a fair, reasonable, and practical construction.” Liggatt v. Employers Mut. Cas. Co., 46 P.3d 1120, 1125 (Kan. 2002). Mr. Ribeau’s argument ignores the Board’s power to terminate an at-will employee at any time without cause, the inapplicability of the grievance process to termination decisions, and the absence of any reference in the Handbook to a pre-termination Board hearing. The Handbook is unambiguous: it confers no right to a pre-termination Board hearing. We decline to find “ambiguities or uncertainties where common sense says there are none.” Jones v. Reliable Sec. Inc., 28 P.3d 1051, 1059 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001).