Jessica McCabe v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., 591 S.W.3d 335

Jessica McCabe and Amy Purdy were Walmart discovery specialists who were terminated after using company records/ processes: McCabe read a terminated boyfriend’s disciplinary records to him; Purdy used the open-door process to report coworkers’ affair and later accessed a department list to confirm a promotion code.
Both sued Walmart for breach of contract and promissory estoppel (detrimental reliance), alleging Walmart’s open-door and ethics policies promised no retaliation and constituted contractual or enforceable promises.
Walmart’s written policies and Global Statement of Ethics explicitly disclaimed any express or implied employment contract and stated employment was at-will; the open-door policy prohibited retaliation but included the at-will language.
The Benton County Circuit Court dismissed the complaint under Ark. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (with prejudice), accepting Walmart’s at-will defense and finding plaintiffs failed to plead an exception to at-will employment.
After dismissal, the trial court awarded Walmart $13,658 in attorney’s fees under Ark. Code Ann. §16-22-308; Walmart submitted no billing records to the public record (offered to file in camera), and plaintiffs objected to lack of evidentiary support.
On appeal the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissals but reversed and remanded the attorney-fee award, holding the court abused its discretion by awarding a substantial fee without evidence (lodestar data, affidavits, or other proof).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether breach-of-contract and promissory-estoppel claims survive despite Walmart’s at-will disclaimers	Plaintiffs: Walmart’s open-door/ethics policies created enforceable promises or induced reasonable reliance against retaliation	Walmart: Policies expressly disclaim contracts; at-will employment bars claims; no pleaded implied-contract or public-policy exception	Held: Affirmed dismissal with prejudice — McCabe’s facts didn’t show she engaged in protected open-door conduct; Purdy’s claims defeated by clear at-will disclaimers and failure to plead an exception or reasonable reliance
Whether trial court properly awarded $13,658 in attorney’s fees without billing evidence	Plaintiffs: Fee award unsupported — no time records, affidavits, lodestar, or Chrisco analysis; award must be reversed or remanded for proper proof	Walmart: Prevailing party entitled to fees; court familiar with record and may rely on its experience; offered to submit bills in camera	Held: Reversed and remanded — court abused discretion by awarding substantial fees without evidentiary support; remand for proper fee determination (lodestar or other admissible proof and opportunity to oppose)

Gladden v. Ark. Children’s Hosp., 292 Ark. 130 (1987) (implied-contract exception to at-will requires an express promise of job security)
Chrisco v. Sun Indus., Inc., 304 Ark. 227 (1990) (factors trial courts should consider in awarding attorney’s fees)
Faulkner v. Ark. Children’s Hosp., 347 Ark. 941 (2002) (personnel policies like grievance procedures typically do not create implied-contract exceptions)
Crain Indus., Inc. v. Cass, 305 Ark. 566 (1991) (handbook language may create an express provision against wrongful discharge if it guarantees job-security-related terms)
Cottrell v. Cottrell, 332 Ark. 352 (1998) (discussion of at-will employment doctrine)
Tharp v. Smith, 326 Ark. 260 (1996) (movant must introduce evidence of damages/claims to support monetary awards)
Sterling Drug, Inc. v. Oxford, 294 Ark. 239 (1988) (public-policy exception to at-will prohibits discharge for reasons violating public policy)