Ed Davis v. City of Montevallo, 380 So.3d 382

Ed Davis was hired in 1998 to manage the Montevallo Golf Course; in 2007 he received and signed the City of Montevallo Employee Handbook acknowledgment.
Acknowledgment stated the Handbook was not a contract for any specified period and said the City retained freedom to terminate employment "at any time" and to change policies with mayor/council approval.
In 2015 the City dissolved the Golf Board, made Davis an at-will City employee, and Mayor Cost terminated him for alleged Handbook violations; the City also denied payment for accrued leave under Handbook rules.
Davis sued for breach of contract, alleging the City failed to follow the Handbook’s discharge procedures (Article 9). The trial court granted the City’s summary-judgment motion and denied Davis’s; Davis appealed.
The Alabama Supreme Court held the Handbook’s mandatory procedural language constituted an offer creating a unilateral contract (accepted by continued employment) and reversed and remanded for findings whether the City actually followed those procedures.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the Handbook create a unilateral contract obligating the City to follow its discharge procedures?	Handbook’s mandatory, step-by-step "shall" procedures are specific enough to constitute an offer; Davis accepted by continuing employment.	Davis was an at-will employee; the acknowledgment disclaimed a contractual relationship and preserved City’s right to change policies and terminate at any time.	The Handbook constituted an offer for a unilateral contract: mandatory language ("shall") made procedures binding; the acknowledgment did not unambiguously disclaim those procedural promises; reservation-to-amend did not make promises illusory.
Did the City follow the Handbook’s discharge procedures?	Davis contended the City failed to provide required written notice, hearing, and appeal rights under Article 9.	City argued no contractual obligation applied because Davis was at-will.	Court did not decide the factual question; remanded to trial court to determine whether the City complied with the Handbook procedures.

Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. v. Campbell, 512 So. 2d 725 (Ala. 1987) (three-part test for when an employee handbook creates a unilateral contract).
Harper v. Winston Cnty., 892 So. 2d 346 (Ala. 2004) (handbook can be binding when language is sufficiently specific).
McCluskey v. Unicare Health Facility, Inc., 484 So. 2d 398 (Ala. 1986) (an unambiguous handbook disclaimer can negate contractual effect).
Abney v. Baptist Med. Ctrs., 597 So. 2d 682 (Ala. 1992) (disclaimer language prevented finding of unilateral contract).
Ex parte Brasher, 555 So. 2d 192 (Ala. 1989) (use of "shall" ordinarily indicates a mandatory requirement).
Ex parte Graham, 702 So. 2d 1215 (Ala. 1997) (ability to later modify handbook does not justify disregarding presently valid provisions).
Stinson v. American Sterilizer Co., 570 So. 2d 618 (Ala. 1990) (indefinite duration does not bar enforcement of unilateral contract created by handbook).