Opinion ID: 1307516
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: breach of implied contract of employment

Text: The first issue before the Court is whether the Plaintiff's evidence established a cause of action for breach of an implied employment contract. [6] Sears maintains that the Plaintiff's evidence failed to establish a cause of action for breach of an implied contract. The Plaintiff, on the other hand, asserts that select provisions contained in the Getting Acquainted With Sears booklet, with which the Plaintiff was provided when he was hired, constitute an implied contract under which he can only be discharged for good cause. The Plaintiff specifically refers to a section of the Getting Acquainted With Sears handbook entitled Employment Rules. The Plaintiff asserts that he believed he could only be terminated if he violated one or more of the enumerated rules. That section, in pertinent part, provides: [A]ny violation of the following rules may result in immediate termination of your employment:... 2. Conclusive evidence of dishonesty, a misdemeanor, or an act indicating low moral standards. In syllabus points 5 and 6 of Cook v. Heck's Inc., 176 W.Va. 368, 342 S.E.2d 453 (1986), this Court held that: A promise of job security contained in an employee handbook distributed by an employer to its employees constitutes an offer for a unilateral contract; and an employee's continuing to work, while under no obligation to do so, constitutes an acceptance and sufficient consideration to make the employer's promise binding and enforceable. An employee handbook may form the basis of a unilateral contract if there is a definite promise therein by the employer not to discharge covered employees except for specified reasons. However, this concept of an employee handbook forming an implied contract of employment was modified in Suter v. Harsco Corporation, 184 W.Va. 734, 403 S.E.2d 751 (1991). In Suter, the plaintiff in applying for the position as a shipping clerk, acknowledged by her signature, the following disclaimer: `I UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT, IF HIRED, MY EMPLOYMENT IS FOR NO DEFINITE PERIOD AND MAY, REGARDLESS OF THE DATE OF PAYMENT OF MY WAGES AND SALARY, BE TERMINATED AT ANY TIME WITHOUT ANY PRIOR NOTICE.' Id. at 736, 403 S.E.2d at 753. When hired, the plaintiff in Suter was given an employee handbook. While the employee handbook contained no specific list of offenses which would result in termination, there was some language which could have been interpreted as meaning that the employer would refrain from terminating an employee without cause after the employee's probationary period was completed. Id. at 736-37, 403 S.E.2d at 753-54 n. 2. The plaintiff was fired after a year and a half of employment. She later brought suit against Harsco Corporation for breach of an implied contract of employment for terminating her employment without cause. We reversed the trial court and held that the trial court should have concluded that, as a matter of law, the at will employment relationship was not modified by the employee handbook. Id. at 736, 403 S.E.2d at 753. Particularly, in syllabus points 4 and 5 of Suter, we held that An employer may protect itself from being bound by statements made in an employee handbook by having each prospective employee acknowledge in his employment application that the employment is for no definite period and by providing in the employment handbook that the handbook's provisions are not exclusive. An employer may protect itself from being bound by any and all statements in an employee handbook by placing a clear and prominent disclaimer to that effect in the handbook itself. Id. at 745, 403 S.E.2d at 752. Further, in Adkins v. Inco Alloys International, Inc., this Court held that in order for a plaintiff to prove that an implied contract existed, such claim must be established by clear and convincing evidence. Syl. Pt. 3, in part, 187 W.Va. 219, 417 S.E.2d 910 (1992). It is also helpful in reaching a decision on this matter to examine the decision of the United States Court of appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Reid v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 790 F.2d 453 (6th Cir.1986). The Court in Reid was presented with the same argument made by the Plaintiff in the present case, essentially that the language in the Employee Rules section of the Getting Acquainted with Sears handbook created an implied contract in which an employee could only be discharged for one of the listed causes or for some other good cause. Id. at 457. The Reid court rejected the Plaintiff's argument by stating that We do not believe the listing of causes that `may result in the termination of your employment' in the Sears handbook detracted in any way from the language in the application or provided a reasonable basis for the conclusion that the plaintiffs were employed under a `for cause' contract. The fact that certain acts were identified as conduct that might lead to discharge did not indicate that these acts were the exclusive permissible grounds for discharge. Id. at 460. Moreover, the Court in Reid referred to the fact that an employer under Michigan law, can defeat a claim by an employee that the employee can be terminated only for good cause by requiring the prospective employee to acknowledge when he is hired that he is an at-will employee. This is precisely what occurred in Reid when the plaintiffs signed an acknowledgement which contained unequivocal language to the effect that they were being hired as at-will employees. Id. at 461. The evidence in the present case reveals that the Plaintiff's application for employment which he completed when he was hired by Sears contains the following pertinent language: In consideration of my employment I agree to conform to the rules and regulations of Sears, Roebuck and Co., and 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 myself.... Further, the following provision is located in the Getting Acquainted With Sears handbook: The information in this booklet covers many subjects and is necessarily very general in its nature. This information is intended only to acquaint you with the more important policies and programs of the company and, except for the paragraphs dealing with Vacations, is not to be construed as defining your rights or obligations thereunder. Therefore, based upon our previous decisions in Cook and Suter, we conclude that a unilateral or implied contract of employment was not created based upon the employee handbook. Not only did the Plaintiff acknowledge that he could be terminated at any time with or without cause, but the handbook specifically contains a statement that it is intended only to acquaint... [the employee] with the more important policies and programs of the company, and with the exception of the paragraphs dealing with Vacations, [it] is not to be construed as defining ... [the employee's] rights or obligations thereunder. Moreover, dishonesty was included in the employee handbook as a possible basis for termination. Accordingly, we concur with the Sixth Circuit's holding in Reid and conclude that the trial court erred in failing to direct a verdict on behalf of the Defendant Sears since the Plaintiff failed to establish his claim of a breach of an implied employment contract by clear and convincing evidence.