*1 1069 THOMAS, C.J., evidence other the contract BROWN, from than Before ties and CARDINE, MACY, URBIGKIT and JJ. itself.
CARDINE, Justice.
in
claims
appellant
This
case which
is a
wrongfully discharged
his em-
by
he was
dispositive
that
ployer. The same
issues
in
involved
Leithead v. American
were
Company, Wyo.,
Colloid
American and Mr. Durtsche summary judgment, moved for which was granted by the district court on claims. all Appellant Armstrong only has raised four appeal, of the on claims and of them three are really just alternatives primary to his contention of breach of contract. Because agree appellant we only with that he could contract, discharged be for cause under his and we because will reverse and on remand basis, that we need not his three discuss issues: promissory estoppel, alternative the faith, good discharge covenant of and against policy. public 1979, August In of Mr. Durtsche invited appellant job op- his to office to discuss a Appel- American portunity with Colloid. prior job lant his a earlier. had lost week Darrah, Powell, E. Joseph Michael and meeting, ap- At the Mr. Durtsche offered Redle, (argued) of Ar- K. Davis Yonkee & pellant and position scraper operator a as a Sheridan, ney, appellant. for that he steady job told him that it was a Copenhaver, Powell, Ross D. Michael long stay. and as he could have as wanted to Porter, (argued) Williams, Day Golden of Appellant accepted the offer to and went Neville, Casper, appellees. immediately. and for work *2 1070 contract; but, tract, sign intentional infliction of emotional dis- did not a
Appellant tress, company, misrepresentation the he met joining and we will soon after —and inspector gave judg- who him an safety summary affirm the district court’s with the explained respect and some employment handbook ment with to these issues. See given State, provisions. He was another of its Pritchard v. Division Vocational of key fall of 1980. The Rehabilitation, 523, in the Wyo., handbook 540 P.2d 524 provisions remained un- employment (1975). changed. in in part part Affirmed and reversed 1982, July, appellant’s immediate In late proceedings and remanded for further con- Walker, supervisor, Ned told him that the opinion. sistent with this go. him In his
company had decided to let THOMAS, Justice, concurring deposition, appellant and claims Chief and affidavit dissenting. permanently he was terminated be- that reported safety a violation to cause he had My position respect disposition to of with superiors. But Mr. Durtsche testified his appeal my position in this is the same as appellant simply deposition in his that was Company, Leithead v. American Colloid Appellant for lack of work. dis- laid off Wyo., (1986). agree 721 P.2d I 1059 that putes explanation, claiming Mr. Durtsche's summary judgment the must be reversed. assured him several that Mr. Durtsche scope I would extend of the to the trial days before the termination that there question include the of factual the effect of layoffs. Appellant no also stated would be language employee the in the handbook. deposition in his that several American Col- over employees loid took his tasks within a
week after he was fired and that several scraper operators
new were hired. There genuine clearly
is a issue of material fact appellant was fired. why
as to did The district court not consider the The the IN MAJORITY OF WORKING appellant’s reasons for termination because IN TEREST OWNERS the BUCK employment it held that the contract was at FIELD DRAW AREA: Diamond Sham holding will. The court based this on its Exploration Company, rock Woods Pe decision in Leithead v. American Colloid Corporation, Chorney troleum Oil 1059, supra, P.2d where the Company, 721 Company, Cities Service Oil and Gas contractual issues were raised and same Jr., Moncrief, Corporation, W.A. interpreted. the same handbooks But we Apache Ep Operating Corporation, holding have reversed the district court’s in Inc., Company by Exploration, Enserch Leithead, and we must its reverse decision Partner, Managing First General Ener in this case for the same reasons. The Petitioners, gy Corporation, “specific general terms and the tenor of v. gave appellant the handbooks an enforce- AND right discharged only WYOMING OIL GAS CONSERVA able to be for cause.” COMMISSION, Respondent, Id., at 1063. The case must be remanded TION proceedings for further to determine: Corporation, Kerr-McGee Marathon Oil First, what constitutes sufficient cause for Company and Louisiana Land and Ex contract, discharge appellant’s under and ploration Company, Interveners. second, appellant reason the was dis- No. 85-287. charged. earlier, pointed As we out our reversal on the breach of contract issue Supreme Wyoming. Court of makes determination of promissory the es- 1, July 1986. toppel, good public and policy faith issues unnecessary. Appellant has not raised the remaining
three in his issues set forth complaint
amended with con- —interference