Opinion ID: 1123057
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Effect of Disclaimers

Text: Loghry contends that Hilt's promise must be construed as a promise of job security upon which she detrimentally relied and which now entitles her to damages under the theory of promissory estoppel. Unicover argues that promissory estoppel cannot apply as an exception to at-will employment when, at her hiring, Loghry signed a disclaimer which effectively causes her reliance on that later promise to be unreasonable. Unicover contends that the express language of its conspicuous and unambiguous disclaimers prevents the application of promissory estoppel in this case. The employment application disclaimer states: In consideration of my employment, I agree to conform to the rules and regulations of the Company and that my employment and compensation can be terminated, with or without cause, and with or without notice, at any time, at the option of either the Company or me. I understand that no employee, manager, or other agent of the Company other than the President of the Company, has any authority to enter into any agreement for employment for any specified period of time, or to make any agreement contrary to the foregoing. Any amendment to the foregoing must be in writing and signed by the President. The employee handbook disclaimer states: The language used in this handbook is not intended to create, nor is it to be construed to constitute, a contract between the Company and any one or all of its employees. You have been hired as an at will employee, and just as you may voluntarily leave at any time, your employment and compensation may be terminated, with or without cause, and with or without notice, at any time by the Company in its sole discretion. There are no promises, express or implied, for continued employment, and no one except the Board of Directors of the Company is authorized to waive or modify these conditions of employment. The district court ruled that it did not need to decide whether promissory estoppel was an exception to the at-will doctrine because promissory estoppel could not be available to Loghry where the disclaimers effectively defeated the promissory estoppel claim. The district court granted summary judgment to Unicover on this basis. Loghry asserts the district court erred because it is a misstatement of employment law to decide that the at-will doctrine and promissory estoppel are mutually exclusive in this case. In Wyoming, employers are not obligated to provide for job security. In the absence of a job security provision, employment of an indefinite duration is presumed to be at-will and either the employee or the employer may terminate it at any time for any or no reason. Loghry v. Unicover, 878 P.2d 510, 512 (Wyo.1994). Wyoming has recognized, however, that an employment handbook may imply a contractual term requiring termination for cause. Id. Such an implication can be avoided by a conspicuous and unambiguous disclaimer. Id. To date, this Court has not recognized promissory estoppel as another exception to the at-will doctrine. Garcia v. UniWyo Federal Credit Union, 920 P.2d 642, 647 (Wyo.1996). In this case, the application signed by Loghry formed a written, at-will employment contract which eliminated the apparent authority of lower level employees to make promises of job security and which required modification of the contract be in writing by the president of the company. Authorities note that a number of courts have recognized that this type of disclaimer is effective against subsequent oral assurances by unauthorized employees of the employer. 2 HENRY H. PERRITT, JR., EMPLOYEE DISMISSAL LAW AND PRACTICE, § 8.8 at 164-165 (3d ed. 1992 & Supp.1996) (listing cases). The language of the handbook disclaimer clearly and conspicuously informed employees that the manual was not part of their employment contract and that their jobs were terminable at the will of the employer with or without reason. Chavez v. Manville Products Corp., 108 N.M. 643, 777 P.2d 371, 374 (1989). By utilizing these legally effective disclaimers, Unicover did not induce any reasonable expectations of job security and did not give employees any reason to rely on representations of the manual or oral representations of unauthorized employees. Id. Loghry asserts that an at-will employee can enforce an oral assurance of job security under the theory of promissory estoppel. Wyoming recognizes promissory estoppel as a cause of action in other contexts. In an insurance context, we said, If an unambiguous promise is made in circumstances calculated to induce reliance, and it does so, the promisee if hurt as a result can recover damages. Doctors' Co. v. Insurance Corp. of Am., 864 P.2d 1018, 1029 (Wyo. 1993) (citations omitted). The purpose of estoppel is `to prevent an injury arising from actions or declarations which have been acted on in good faith and which would be inequitable to permit a party to retract.' Davis v. Davis, 855 P.2d 342, 347-48 (Wyo.1993) (quoting Jankovsky v. Halladay Motors, 482 P.2d 129, 132 (Wyo.1971)). Promissory estoppel claims must show a clear and definite agreement; proof that the party urging the doctrine acted to its detriment in reasonable reliance on the agreement; and the equities support the enforcement of the agreement. Michie v. Bd. of Trustees of Carbon County School Dist. No. 1, 847 P.2d 1006, 1009 (Wyo. 1993). Loghry contends Hilt's promise induced her to change her working relationship and jeopardize her job security and as a result she was unjustly terminated in retaliation for her cooperation in the investigation. Promissory estoppel requires that the promise induce action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character. As an at-will employee, any change of position by Loghry was too insubstantial to amount to reliant conduct. At best, these allegations amount to a claim that Unicover acted with a bad motive. Wyoming recognizes that the bad motives of an employer may be actionable under limited circumstances, particularly for at-will employees. Wilder v. Cody Country Chamber of Commerce, 868 P.2d 211, 221 (Wyo.1994). Those allegations of bad motives meeting the legal requirements are actionable under a claim styled as a breach of the covenant of implied good faith and fair dealing. As Loghry pleaded a tort claim for that cause of action, the equities require that Loghry sustain her claim under it, rather than under this element of promissory estoppel. Even if we were to accept that at-will employment permits application of promissory estoppel and were to further accept that Loghry meets her factual burden on the first two elements of the doctrine, the authorities indicate that the third element requires judicial consideration of what injustice or hardship a promisee will suffer if the promise is not enforced. Michie, 847 P.2d at 1009; Inter-Mountain Threading, Inc. v. Baker Hughes Tubular Services, Inc., 812 P.2d 555, 560 (Wyo.1991); Benjamin F. Boyer, Promissory Estoppel: Requirements and Limitations of the Doctrine, 98 U.PA.L.REV. 459, 485 (1950). There is no set criteria as to demonstrating the injustice element; however, generally, a court should at least consider what the promisee's cost of reliance was and whether any other remedy is available to her. Id. Loghry concedes that Hilt's promise that she would not be fired for cooperating in his investigation did not change her status as an at-will employee. Since she could be fired immediately for any reason or no reason, it is impossible to calculate her damages, a necessary part of establishing her promissory estoppel claim. Jarboe v. Landmark Community Newspapers, 644 N.E.2d 118, 122 (Ind. 1994). Under the standard that a promise is binding if injustice can only be avoided by enforcement of the promise, Loghry does not demonstrate the requisite harm. As the preceding analysis demonstrates, application of promissory estoppel in the at-will employment context is not a straightforward proposition. This Court's employment law jurisprudence upholds conspicuous, unambiguous disclaimers by employers as fair notice to employees of what can be expected from the employer. In order to remain consistent, it is our view that resolution of Loghry's promissory estoppel claim requires that we give effect to the disclaimers instead of deciding under our equitable powers. By its use of disclaimers, Unicover clearly intended to protect itself from claims based upon oral representations made to employees concerning job security, and Unicover is entitled to our judgment that the disclaimer provisions are enforceable even against a promissory estoppel claim. Chavez, 777 P.2d at 374; see Hatfield v. Bd. of County Commissioners, 52 F.3d 858 (10th Cir.1995) (applying Wyoming law). The Chavez decision aptly states our basis: Promissory estoppel requires the party invoking the doctrine to have acted reasonably in justifiable reliance on the promise that was made.... [I]t was unreasonable for [Loghry] to change [her] position in reliance on oral representations contrary to an express term of an employment contract which provided that their agreement could only be modified in writing [by the President]. Were we to reach a different conclusion, we believe in effect we would be rewriting the terms of the parties' contract, and this we decline to do. Chavez, 777 P.2d at 374 (citations omitted). There can be no estoppel as a matter of law when the asserted reliance is not justifiable or reasonable under the circumstances of the case considered as a whole. Davis, 855 P.2d at 348; Roth v. First Sec. Bank, 684 P.2d 93, 97 (Wyo.1984). The disclaimer that Loghry signed conspicuously and unambiguously stated that only the president had authority to alter the terms of her employment. By signing such a disclaimer, Loghry signified that she was fully informed that another officer, supervisor, or employee could not secure her position even in an extraordinary situation such as this one. Since this disclaimer informed Loghry that her employment could be terminated for any reason, even an unfair one, and since it informed her that no subsequent, unauthorized statement could alter this, she could not then reasonably rely on Hilt's assurance as a matter of law. Promissory estoppel is not available to Loghry because of the specific disclaimer language.