Opinion ID: 2610927
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether Farmer was an at-will employee.

Text: ABS contends that Farmer was an at-will employee. We disagree. We note that all employees in Nevada are presumed to be at-will employees. An employee may rebut this presumption by proving by a preponderance of the evidence that there was an express or implied contract between his employer and himself that his employer would fire him only for cause. Bally's Employees' Credit Union v. Wallen, 105 Nev. 553, 779 P.2d 956, 957 (1989). There is substantial evidence which rebuts the presumption that Farmer was an at-will employee and demonstrates that the jury was justified in finding he had an express oral contract with ABS that permitted his firing only for good cause. First, when McDonald (the hiring authority for ABS) offered Farmer a job at ABS he told him that if he did his job adequately he would keep his job but if he did not perform well he would be fired. He added That's the way American Bank Stationery operates. This language is part of an offer which includes an explicit promise by ABS to keep Farmer as an employee if he performed adequately. Alternatively, the language also indicates that Farmer's continued employment was subject to a condition subsequent, namely, that if Farmer failed to perform adequately, ABS could fire him. We emphasize that McDonald's promise is not a general expression of anticipated long term employment pursuant to Vancheri v. GNLV Corp., 105 Nev. 417, 777 P.2d 366 (1989). Rather, it was part of a specific offer that would lead a reasonable person in Farmer's position to believe that if he accepted the job he could only be fired for good cause. [3] Thus, when Farmer accepted ABS's offer of employment a contract was formed in which ABS promised that it would fire Farmer only for good cause. Additionally, when offering Farmer a job at ABS, McDonald reviewed an employee handbook with Farmer. This handbook set forth reasons for which an employee could be terminated by ABS. The handbook stated that an employee could be discharged only for cause. McDonald believed that the policies in the handbook applied to Farmer. He discussed the handbook with Farmer extensively, asked him to read it in front of him, and strongly implied that the handbook applied to Farmer. Since it was made contemporaneously with the express oral promise, McDonald's reference to the handbook further strengthens the argument that ABS made an express oral agreement with Farmer that it would only fire him for cause. The handbook became a part of the oral contract between Farmer and ABS when McDonald indicated that it applied to Farmer. [4] We emphasize that this opinion does not stand for the proposition that an employee handbook explaining a company's policies regarding termination automatically transforms an at-will employee into an employee who may only be fired for cause. Such a holding could discourage companies from publishing such handbooks. This case is distinguishable from Smith v. Cladianos, 104 Nev. 68, 752 P.2d 233 (1988), in which this court held that a provision in an employee handbook did not modify an employer's ability to discharge an at-will employee. In the instant case, ABS's handbook is written evidence of an express oral contract between ABS and Farmer that ABS would only fire Farmer for cause. We further stress that we have decided this case on contractual principles only and have not modified the presumption that all employees are at-will employees. We simply hold that employers and employees are free to contractually change an employee's at-will status by either a written or oral agreement. We leave it to the jury to find whether such a contract has been entered into.