Opinion ID: 1205572
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: implied in fact contract

Text: Garcia claims that UniWyo's Personnel Policy P-3, by distinguishing probationary from permanent employees and giving the Manager responsibility for discharging [employees] for cause[,] afforded her a legitimate expectation of permanent employment from which she might only be discharged for cause. At the very least, Garcia argues that the personnel policy constituted an ambiguous contract. Such ambiguity, she contends, makes interpretation of the contract a mixed question of fact and law, leaving the case inappropriate for summary judgment. Employment contracts are presumed to be at will in Wyoming and, absent more, discharge may occur without cause. Alexander v. Phillips Oil Co., 707 P.2d 1385, 1386 (Wyo.1985) ( quoting Siebken v. Town of Wheatland, 700 P.2d 1236, 1237 (Wyo.1985)). However, personnel policies or an employee handbook may rebut that presumption, giving employees contractual rights founded upon consideration flowing to the employer in the form of a more orderly, cooperative and loyal work force. Leithead v. American Colloid Co., 721 P.2d 1059, 1062-63 (Wyo. 1986) ( citing Mobil Coal Producing, Inc. v. Parks, 704 P.2d 702, 707 (Wyo.1985)). Recognition of such implied in fact contracts of employment occasions no need for departure from our usual rules of contract interpretation. McDonald v. Mobil Coal Producing, Inc., 820 P.2d 986, 988 (Wyo.1991) ( McDonald II ). Summary judgment remains appropriate when the contract in question is unambiguous. Martin v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 894 P.2d 618, 620 (Wyo.1995). Whether a contract is ambiguous constitutes a question of law. Prudential Preferred Properties v. J and J Ventures, Inc., 859 P.2d 1267, 1271 (Wyo.1993). Absent ambiguity, interpretation of implied in fact contracts is a question of law. Feather v. State Farm Fire and Cas., 872 P.2d 1177, 1180 (Wyo.1994). We search for objective manifestations sufficient to create reasonable reliance by the party claiming benefit. McDonald II, 820 P.2d at 990. UniWyo's personnel policies constitute a contract and will be read as a whole. Alexander, 707 P.2d at 1389. Each provision is read in light of the others to find the plain meaning of the document. Martin, 894 P.2d at 620. We also look past specific terms to the general tenor of employee handbooks. Leithead, 721 P.2d at 1063. UniWyo's personnel policies are general statements on policy, fragmented in nature, adopted in piecemeal fashion on increasingly remote occasions. Both parties argue that many of the personnel policies are observed principally in the breach. The question is whether the personnel policies' denomination of probationary and permanent employees, taken with the Manager's prerogative to discharge employees for cause, engender a legitimate expectation of permanent employment on Garcia's part. The first hint of an answer comes in the generally unavailing search for a distinction between permanent and probationary employees. Probationary employees are evaluated at the end of six months while permanent employees are evaluated once a year. Permanent employees may earn leave time while probationary employees may not. Significantly, the Manager's prerogative to discharge for cause fails to discriminate between probationary and permanent employees. Personnel policy assignment of managerial responsibility, inter alia, for discharging [employees] for cause    within limitations prescribed by the Board of Directors creates no implied in fact contract. We have consistently required something more of handbooks, be it clarification of what constitutes cause or a progressive discipline schedule. See, e.g., Lincoln v. Wackenhut Corp., 867 P.2d 701, 703 (Wyo.1994) and cases cited therein. Neither is present in UniWyo's personnel policies. UniWyo made a prima facie case for summary judgment, obliging Garcia to muster competent, admissible evidence to the contrary. Garcia's rejoinder: I just feel like there needs to be a cause[.] Such feelings create no material issue of fact. Summary judgment on the implied in fact contractual claim was proper.