Opinion ID: 169405
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Implied Contract/Promissory Estoppel

Text: 49 Berry was hired as an at-will employee as stated in both her letters of employment in 2000 and 2002. T-Mobile's employee handbook contains a conspicuous disclaimer and does not have a provision for progressive discipline. Nonetheless, Berry claims there was an unwritten policy that immediate dismissal would only be for cause which provides the basis for her breach of implied contract and promissory estoppel claims. Berry also claims she relied on Kavanah's explicit promises he would tell her if her employment was in jeopardy. Berry again relies on Shepard's testimony regarding different levels of corrective action, her testimony that only certain acts, such as violence, would lead to direct dismissal if the dismissal were based on that act alone, and her confirmation Berry did not engage in any activity that would support a direct dismissal and had not received a written or verbal warning or been suspended. 50 Citing Evenson v. Colorado Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company, 879 P.2d 402 (Colo.App.1993), Berry claims she had an employment contract despite the disclaimers in her letter of employment. In Evenson, the Colorado Court of Appeals recognized an employee hired for an unspecified period of time is presumed to be an `at-will employee' whose employment may be terminated without cause or notice and such termination does not give rise to a cause of action. Id. at 408. This general rule does not apply, however, if the employer has limited its right to terminate employees. Id. at 408-09. The Evenson court noted that, even if there is a conspicuous disclaimer, the manual may create an implied contract if it contains mandatory termination procedures or requires just cause for termination. Id. at 409. Finally, the Evenson court held that even if the manual contains a disclaimer and includes language that makes use of the disciplinary procedures discretionary, the contract issue should be submitted to the jury if there is evidence that the employer's supervisors treat the disciplinary procedures as mandatory. Id. A mandatory policy is demonstrated by evidence that the procedures were used in each instance of termination generally and the procedures were always used with reference to employees in plaintiff's department or at her level of management in the company. Mariani v. Rocky Mountain Hosp. & Med. Serv., 902 P.2d 429, 435 (Colo.App. 1994). 51 Unlike Evenson, the evidence offered by Berry is insufficient to warrant submission of the issue to a jury. The employee handbook does not contain any reference to a policy of progressive discipline. As noted above, Shepard's statements do not establish an unwritten policy mandating progressive discipline prior to terminating employment. Further, the evidence demonstrates many employees were fired without progressive discipline, including employees at Berry's level of management in the company. Kavanah's assurances to Berry do not change this conclusion. The promises he made on October 30 did not alter Berry's at-will status or promise progressive discipline. Thus, Berry could not reasonably rely on his words to restrict T-Mobile's right to terminate her employment with or without cause. As a result, the district court properly awarded summary judgment to T-Mobile on this claim.