Becker v. Fred Meyer Stores, Inc.
335 P.3d 1110
Alaska2014Background
- Becker was a Fred Meyer loss prevention manager for 17 years and was terminated in January 2012 after an incident on January 3 where he pursued a suspected shoplifter, threw the suspect’s phone onto the store roof, retrieved photos from it, and reported the incident to police.
- Fred Meyer relied on a detailed Loss Prevention Policy Manual that listed causes for immediate termination, progressive disciplinary guidelines for non-arrest/non-policy stops, and specific criteria for lawful apprehensions.
- Becker claimed the manual was part of his employment contract (modifying at-will status), and that Fred Meyer breached the contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by terminating him without following the manual’s procedures and by treating him more harshly than similarly situated employees.
- Fred Meyer argued the manual did not create contractual rights because it used hedging language and preserved management discretion to terminate; it also argued Becker’s conduct justified termination and that no similarly situated employees existed.
- The superior court granted summary judgment for Fred Meyer, holding (1) the manual did not alter at-will employment and (2) Becker failed to show disparate treatment; Becker appealed.
- The Alaska Supreme Court reversed and remanded, concluding genuine issues of material fact exist on both whether the manual created enforceable contract rights and whether Becker raised a triable disparate-treatment claim under the implied covenant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Loss Prevention Manual modified at-will employment | Manual’s detailed procedures create a reasonable expectation of progressive discipline and limit termination without notice | Manual’s hedging/disclaimer language and references to additional policies preserve employer discretion to terminate at will | Triable issue of fact exists; not resolved on summary judgment (reversed and remanded) |
| Whether the manual’s discretionary language defeats contractual effect | Language exceptions are narrow and do not render the manual nonbinding given its detail and context | Broad hedging language means employees could not reasonably expect binding rights | Court found the discretionary language was not sufficiently prominent to foreclose a fact question; remand required |
| Whether Becker offered sufficient evidence of disparate treatment under the implied covenant (objective component) | Identified 29 employees and provided specifics about at least two employees who were not terminated for similar or more serious offenses | No evidence of any employee who committed misconduct remotely like Becker’s; discipline decisions justified | Triable factual dispute exists about disparate treatment; summary judgment improper (reversed and remanded) |
| Whether wrongful termination claim stands after resolution of underlying claims | Wrongful termination depends on breach of contract / covenant | Same | Wrongful termination remains unresolved and must be decided consistent with remanded proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoendermis v. Advanced Physical Therapy, Inc., 251 P.3d 346 (Alaska 2011) (employee manual can modify at-will employment; jury question when manual creates reasonable expectations)
- Holland v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 993 P.2d 1026 (Alaska 1999) (non-exclusive lists and soft language can negate a binding right to progressive discipline)
- Jones v. Central Peninsula Gen. Hosp., 779 P.2d 783 (Alaska 1989) (detailed manual can be incorporated into employment contract despite terse disclaimer)
- Parker v. Mat-Su Council on Prevention of Alcoholism & Drug Abuse, 813 P.2d 665 (Alaska 1991) (personnel manual outlining disciplinary procedures and stating termination only for cause can modify employment agreement)