Court Opinion

ID: 9667200
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:38:09.263996+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:35.891741
License: Public Domain

TIJERINA, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. In this case the trial court rendered summary judgment in favor of appellee decreeing that the employment contract at issue was terminable at the will of either party. It is undisputed that appellant quit his job in Arizona and moved his family to Texas relying on the employment contract. However, the summary judgment evidence, which includes the depositions, clearly established that there was no specific agreement between the parties as to the duration of the contract and whatever appellant assumed as to job security or tenure is irrelevant. Appellant stated that if he had been offered another job while working for appellee he would have considered taking it. Thus, he himself considered the employment contract terminable at the will of either party.
The undisturbed rule in this regard was pronounced by the Supreme Court in East Line & R.R.R. Co. v. Scott, 72 Tex. 70, 10 S.W. 99 (1888), where the court stated:
It is very generally, if not uniformly, held, when the terms of service is left to the discretion of either party, or the terms left indefinite, or determinable by either party, that either may put an end to it at-will, and so without cause.
Id., 10 S.W. at 102. This rule was more recently reiterated in Maus v. National Living Centers, Inc., 633 S.W.2d 674, 675 (Tex.Civ.App.—Austin 1982, writ ref’d n.r. e.). There being no other material issues to be resolved by a trier of fact, I would affirm the trial court judgment.