Court Opinion

ID: 9491060
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 14:02:38.854989+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:54:29.232766
License: Public Domain

WEBB, Chief District Judge,
concurring specially.
I concur in the result of this case because the law is clearly in Wal-Mart’s favor. I write separately, however, to express my concern with the present state of the Minnesota “at will” employment doctrine as it pertains to employee handbooks. In my view, courts are placing too much emphasis on disclaimers rather than searching for the true intent of employee handbooks as a whole. Savvy employers such as Wal-Mart should not be allowed to hide behind relatively inconspicuous disclaimers when in the same breath they outline detailed procedures for discipline or termination. These illusory promises have no purpose other than to provide employees a false sense of security and stability in their employment, a purpose which should not be so readily condoned by the courts.