*1 Restate- point for our case is More to 2d, HINSON, itself: Agency Plaintiff-Appellant, Nita § un- principal who is master or other “A for or to duty provide protection ader Patricia CAMERON Comanche protect others or their care used to
have County Hospital Authority, a perform- confides the property and who trust, Defendants-Appellees. or other of such to a servant ance No. 64159. other subject liability to such person is by the for harm caused to them persons Supreme Court of Oklahoma. agent perform failure of such June duty.” Sept. Rehearing Denied liability was the contractual Lou-Con provision, imposed by the “hold harmless” in themselves employee’s acts
because duty to Gulfs contracted
did not breach the hold janitorial services. Here
provide to find clause need not be invoked
harmless E’s loss responsibility if OG &
contractual by Pinkerton’s contractual
was occasioned it prevent theft. We find that
failure to
was, and that Pinkerton’s must stand liable felonies of
as a matter of not for the provide for its failure to employee,
its but E contracted for. OG & protection watchman; for a it was fur-
contracted hiring not an
nished a thief. Care in is aspect dis-
issue in this contractual of the (Corbin, supra)
pute. P. 365 purpose therefore hold that when the
We protection property
of a contract is
theft, contracting party is liable contracting party’s for theft
owner if the theft is committed while guard otherwise property. Inquiry in this case need not pursued as to Pinkerton’s whether scope
guard acting within opinion Appeals, Court 3, vacated, having No. certiorari
Division
previously granted, been and the plaintiff
of the trial court in favor of
against is affirmed in the defendant stated, ex-
amount so but for the reasons
pressed herein.
All Justices concur. *2 Shaw, Hensley, Hensley
Bill Jeff & Shaw, Lawton, plaintiff-appellant. Reneau, Fenton, Smith, Fenton, Dale Re- Moon, City, neau & defend- ants-appellees.
OPALA,
beginning
during
at the
the fateful
Justice.
shift.
ri:
for her
duty, state a
Two
Did the
questions
Did
failure to
an at-will
cause of action
are
perform
presented
employee,
manual alter
employment?
on certiora-
dismissed
assigned
tort for
an at-
tered the
Hospital, protects
sent
She asserts that Cameron subsequently al-
of her
assignment
cause.
manual,
her from
sheet and
which constitutes a
contract with the
argues
ab-
*3
relationship
plaintiff
between the
questions
employer?
her
We answer both
I
negative
reinstate the trial
in the
summary judgment for the defend-
court’s
SUMMARY JUDGMENT MUST
BE
ants.
AFFIRMED
Summary judgment
proper only
against
In an action
Patricia Cameron
controversy
when no substantial
exists as
supervisor]
or
and Comanche
[Cameron
to
material fact.2
Hospital Authority [Hospital],
Under tort rubric
County
Nita
argues
sought damages
supervisor
Hinson
that her
Hinson
for what
altered
[Hinson]
wrong-
fabricate,
faith,
duty
characterize either as a tort of
the
sheet to
bad
or,
employment
from
in the
sup
ful
false reason for her
In
termination.
alternative,
employment
as a
con-
breach
port of her
Hin-
breach-of-contract
tract.
son contends the
manual consti
binding agreement
protects
tutes a
that
her
employed
Hospi-
Hinson had been
at the
cause,”
from dismissal other than “for
a nurse’s
tal as
assistant from March
Hinson’s conclusion is that she was fired
May
night May
until
1983. On the
Hospital’s
without cause and that
reported
1983 Hinson
to work and re-
ground
“manufactured”
for her dismissal
assigned
by
sheet
to her
viewed
employ
constitutes either a breach of her
Cameron,
supervisor.
her
Hinson claims
wrongful
ment contract or a tort of
dis
she received no
that
additional orders dur-
charge or both.
supervisor,
her shift from her
written
shift,
completion
or oral. At the
of her
correctly
We hold that
the trial court
original assignment
Hinson checked the
summary judgment
rendered
for both
against
copy
sheet
her
to reaffirm that she
supervisor.
Hospital and the
Since Hinson
assigned
had fulfilled all of her
duties.
supervi-
argument
makes no
here that the
Forgetting
copy,
to turn in her
Hinson re-
improperly
tortiously
sor
or
interfered with
Hospital
morning,
turned to the
the next
relation,
employment
her
we need not
May
was
When she arrived she
pause
evidentiary
to consider whether the
report
personnel
asked to
office and
to the
support Hinson’s
material before us would
following
was terminated for not
orders.1
against
supervisor
alone for
tort claim
her
precipitated
Hinson
interference with
claims the order that
actionable
her
given
to her either ment status.3
never
n
recognizes
allegedly assigned
jurisprudence
1. The order
Hinson was to
that one
intentionally
patient
privilege,
interferes
without a
who
enema.
relationship by
employment
unlawful
with an
Co., Okl.,
cause,
justifiable
2. Flanders v. Crane
becomes
means or without a
any proximately
liable to the
Salmon,
See Del State Bank v.
caused harm.
Okl.,
provide
3. See
any of
exceptions,
would be nonetheless
The covenant of
faith and fair deal
compelled
implied
requires
to conclude that she has no ac-
that
in law
discharge.
party
anything
tort claim for
neither
do
injure
tionable
that will
termination was not in direct violation
of others to
Her
receive the benefits
agreement.13
any public policy.
Neither the
of their
This
is said to
9. Some courts
11. This
10.
pany,
graphics, 85 N.J.
Kelsay v.
workers’
the
Foods, Inc.,
poor-quality
discharged
tion are that undue restrictions
IMPLIED CONTRACT
infringe
legit
employers
upon
would
their
implied
Under the
contract restrictions of
managerial
exercise of
imate
discretion.16
the freedom to
an at-will
ee,
particular
courts have found from
facts
California
come
has
closer than
parties
had intended a contract of
good-
jurisdiction
implying
other
permanent employment or one of tenured
employment-at-will
faith
in all
cont
job security.
logic
Factors which
iso-
racts.17 Neither the
have been
California
adopting
lated
critical to
argued-for implied
decisions
evaluate
whether
implied
job security
covenant of
nor
faith
the scenario
exists
(a)
persuades
“separate
are:
evidence
considered
these cases
us to
of some
consid-
fashion
to govern
beyond
so broad
rule
eration”
the employee’s
case
services to
implied term, (b)
before us. We hence
today
support
decline
to im
longevity of
pose upon
employer
legal duty
employment, (c)
not
handbooks and
17. See
16.
15. See
Fortune and
National Cash
not on tort law.
contained in
ter that
ed
opined
supra note
theory Monge
N.H.
National Cash
Insurance
law covenant of
note
ment
eighteen years
App.3d
American
Brockmeyer v. Dun &
tels, Inc.,
1982]. Two other cases
[1982]
561,
Rptr. at 728.
The Tort
When,
See
Tameny
Dept.
Hinson maintains that the em- “as an offer for a unilateral manual constitutes a contract ac- cepted by plaintiff’s implication provisions binding. continuing and its are to work The foregoing manual contains information defendant and option hospital policies about bene- termination.”25 It found that the bene- According argument fits. to Hinson’s her fits offered in the manual were calculated termination was “without cause” because it to induce production to increase was not based on of the listed and to remain company.26 with the in, by, and hence sanctioned the manual.21 Although yet we have directly to address Thus, concludes, she her termination was in the issue reached Langdon, its resolu- breach of the contract. appears tion there compatible with our la- asserts that the pronouncement ter in public employment manual does not constitute a contract. It case, Independent Miller v. School Dis- cites to several authorities for the basis of that, trict No. Etc.27 In Miller we held argument.22 this According Hospi- disputes involving nonrenewal of a position, tal’s Hinson had neither a written contract, school teacher’s state- implied nor an contract but stood in the adopted by the board of education status of an at-will terminable providing for written notification of rea- any time with or without cause. sons for incorporated by nonrenewal was
In Langdon
Saga Corp.,23
the Court
implication in the teacher’s contract of em-
Appeals
held that
employer’s person-
ployment.
nel
providing
manual
for certain
e.g., vacation and severance
Hinson’s action must
in
also fail
benefits —
pay
a contractual basis for a ter- sofar as she advances her claim under an
—created
20.Examples
turning
people
N.Y.2d
express promises
ing recruiting,
Brawthen v. H
lured
ours &
categories
ed Foods
ation
are borne
ries that courts have crafted from the
v. See’s
conditions,
N.W.2d
er,
cial
General Electric
[1982] and
ton v. Tennessee
University,
1965],
1972]; (b)
L.Ed.2d 219
[1965]
compensation programs,
Stouter v. Walnut Grove
cert.
who then become
305 [Iowa
Company,
down offers of other
America,
Candies, Inc.,
are:
implied theory.28 examples Viewed in lists of although not contract but all, her,29 light grounds the for short, most favorable manual termination.30 In 29. Hinson 28. Manual at [2] ty between her and the dent of the Comanche that it vides that a dered below. the shown pgs. Cos. trict must except evidentiary materials before us tion promissory tenure that an issue of the or gal manual. Neither of Hinson's two form benefits al "* * * keep capable employees. gether tant touch of friendliness [Emphasis “The duty. efficiency, yet Whether homa.” at tance. We best so our ical, you each your questions supervisor. pect of us on our combined efforts to serve study this 1.Offer about Hospital, answers to “Dear which was attached to the For contractual to continue Welcome Remember, there are This booklet was written to Hospital summary effect of the fact issues Comanche Introductory Courts, always expect learn about Comanche we need Dismissal objectives was a for their Employee: to make this the best personnel policies Okl., steady employment motion must file a which Hinson your relies shall be the stipulated the better would party inducement dehors added.] are: be limited to the theories or issues Hospital booklet, well in this fact to depend those part patients may regain manual to substantiate her claim judgment record to duties her *8 page Frey you O.S.Supp.1984, position County we also need that extra Law and each are not of Comanche on printed * * * who relied cover you, shield her from the case. employment by most often asked protection team, on each be tried. Rule Hospital: conscientiously. employee you causes. enable induced Hinson to refer to it County perform seeks to (Objectives) Memorial To4. Independence and what have been motion identifies answered, below letter following portions Practice, job more text hospital. medical, 13(b), beyond 20 [1985]. response outlining provide employee to those who us of County is of Appellate person County in the Ch. from from an solely let us resist than the to obtain benefits, Moreover, Rules for Dis- often, give you Hospital, yet equal impor- you may §§ their health. actually responses talk to Perritt, or nonmed- hospital the call of manual as speed The more no indica- Memorial 725 of us App., pro- 4.12-4.14, to do his on the questions summary promised work to- Fire and Memori- in Okla- Authori- manual: * * *" impor- and if review be, accept presi- what some your per- Em- ten- to: the ex- so le- 30.[1] Manual [2] Manual at mination) [5] Manual at time) [3] 2. Failure to pervisor. consecutive head. poor performance ee. satisfactorily tions such as: department tice time. “This term refers to hours without [Emphasis added.] chance 1. period coercing department any nesses. cious 8. 9. 7. Unexcused hours. 4. position for non-business reasons. safety practices. 6. Unexcused 11. 3. 5. Willful scheduled. 10. 2. offense riod is over. reason gation warning “The immediate termination. Clocking * * * than "* * * panure to work as schedules is a “ * * *" [Emphasis added.] period, ous 1. “* * * ed.] the [Emphasis added.] Manual at Manual Any Obscene, Horseplay Being Loafing Working Stopping Employees for problem, time for Smoking Repeated Leaving Threatening, Gambling, lottery following yourself gossip. on the is noted a second termination violation unexcused absence which cannot be Before fellow and/or away three violation hospital premises at head or days head overtime when not work before scheduled work page abusive and is or pages part pages page any purpose. explained page failure to be work or is report permission an/or or the offenses can result in a written and/or from the end (3) prohibited regardless unauthorized immediate without of in or out throwing things. loitering and/or of intimidating, hospital during working separation days 17 and 18 grounds 19 and 20 major supervisor. either. designated habitual series of tardi- (Employee language (Getting Acquainted) to work for three (Work discharged safety hospital habitual absenteeism. time, be initiated to the any notifying on supervisor rules " for during for suspension Hours rules or at administration, (Causes initiated [Emphasis it will result in other areas." (Discharge) and/or termination. work area or anyone without Time probationary approved and termination. pay. arguing without no- department premises station on your game time. working hospital Badges) regula- due to of If either mali- Over- other seri- add- obli- Ter- (3) su- the pe- or or at ” us, Hospital. if direction of Even the Hos- before when evidentiary materials supervi- later aware of prevailing pital did become parameters of by the assayed change of actionability duty of sor’s unwarranted upholding the for theories sheet, discharge its failure to rescind the discharge, do employee’s abusive an at-will not make Hinson’s claim support does actionable any fact issues that not tender unless, course, wrong- was then or a tort claim a contract either a or contractual to hold under a from severance ful post-termination inquest pretermination or ap Assuming that Oklahoma would permissible grounds into the existence of policy exception and would ply for her dismissal.31 tortious recognize an action for Although survey ju our of national hospital on Cameron’s falsified grounded risprudence liability on dis records, between the there is here no nexus charge only discloses tort and contract Hospital and the willful alterations attrib cases, might of a status-based supervisor. It is nei breach to the accused uted recovery also be invoked as a supervisor alleged nor shown that ther dismissal.32 Were we to as- agent or at the an actionable entry false as an made the neglect damage Any re- 21. willful action or which or of hos- Deliberate destruction 3. placing the re- sults or could have results in property property of fellow em- pital or the covery patient jeopardy. of a ployees. hospital policy. follow 22. Failure to assigned complete schedule or Refusal to 4. safety that threatens the 23. Other conduct walking job approval imme- off visitors, employees, reputation patients, or supervisor. diate hospital physical property or thereof." concerning Falsifying hospital in- records 5. [Emphasis added.] formation, policies. procedures or property Stealing attempting steal or 6. No contention is made here that Hinson 31. hospital, patients, visitors or from the public employee protection of within the Loudermill, ees. Education v. Cleveland Board of Intoxication, possession drinking of al- or 7. L.Ed.2d 494 [1985]. U.S. 105 S.Ct. beverages hospital challenge some dis- coholic within Loudermill dealt with proprie- employees district missed school ty time. discharge. held The Court Fighting, sexually harrassing, attempting of their 8. constitutionally public employee” is "tenured any activity injure engaging or guaranteed to notice of well-being might endanger of a the life or "present pretermination opportunity to to a employee. patient or post-termi- story.” addition to side use, possession or willful 9. Unauthorized hearing procedures af- nation administrative drugs. misuse of discharged workers fordable state supervi- 10. Failure to follow instructions Loudermill, public employees, also held were all pertaining sors to work. entitled, stages, certain pretermination Restriction, delaying slowing down or 11. process protection. due minimum standards of employees. process the work of other Clocking employee. another 12. in or out for litigant parties vis-a-vis one stand 32. Whether distributing Soliciting, written or other 13. employer/em- principal/agent, another in a material, notices, posting signs or independent contrac- or as one relation hospital without admin- or within the depends status on their tor vis-a-vis another approval. istrative surrounding rather which is facts from found hospi- indecency Immoral or on 14. conduct discrep- solely In case from contract. than property. contract, tal control ancy between facts and facts Overstaying 15. a leave of absence without parties’agree- contrary provisions in the over the Okl., Pie, Inc., approval. Brewer v. Bama ment. 500, weapons hospital illegal Hogan 16. Possession of on v. State Industrial 502 [1964] Commission, property. P. Okl. status, any group Organizational notion of contract Employment 17. activities for a mixed status, all the facts groups premises or time and with- is determinable Bama, supra, in evidence. approval. and circumstances out administrative Law, Graveson, pgs. Common in the falsifying applications Status Willfully for em- Press, University London Athlone [The ployment. 1953]. Divulging information con- confidential notions, from historical cerning patients employees. derived Status-based antecedents, acknowledgement in the case gifts Exchange money, property find Pugh See's jurisdictions. See patients. law of other between *9 558 Hinson’s,claim one for the “principal-agent” analysis
sess as breach utilized in (status-based) duty, Under our answer Hall. Oklahoma’s revised relational promulgated Hall, given doctrine as I differ from the assessment see no would not difference, as a matter of under both delictual and contrac- between that claim principal agent.1 master-servant and and analyses. tual The second is that the failed to granted; Appeals’ Court of Certiorari the grievance procedures avail herself of the opinion vacated and trial court’s sum- is the contained in the by manual furnished mary is affirmed. resorting before to the courts.2 The third is that there an remains unre- HARGRAVE, V.C.J., HODGES, and question solved concerning of fact whether SIMMS, JJ., and LAVENDER concur. employee may an employer sue an DOOLIN, C.J., and WILSON and breach of that an JJ., KAUGER, in part concur and manual, published unilaterally part. dissent in employer, may serve as a basis for altering the terms an other- SUMMERS, J., concurs result. wise terminable at will. KAUGER, whom, DOOLIN, Justice with Courts have followed three theories Justice, WILSON, Justice, join Chief and resolving question. the third Several have concurring dissenting part. concluded that manuals which de- things
There
three
which particularly
procedures
are
lineate termination
or reasons
disposition
trouble me about the
of this
contractually
termination are not
bind-
case
entry
ing
employer.3
affirmance
Others have held
summary judgment. The first is
at-
an employee
that
manual which contains
tempt
distinguish
v.
procedures
Hall
Farmers Ins.
is a unilateral offer
1027,
(Okla.1986),
713
Exchange,
P.2d
1031
for which continued service
based on the majority’s
ap- by
employee may
status-based
constitute both ac-
proach
characterizes
relationship
ceptance
consideration,
thereby
creat-
at issue as
opposed
“master-servant” as
relationship.4
a contractual
Some have
Candies, Inc.,
15,
supra
Co.,
(Okla.
171
v.
Peter Golden Oil
than of contract. While an
between
(3rd Cir.1979); Sabertay
559 manual determined that terminate an employee for reasons other than those binding employer, not set forth on the on the therein.8 contract, implied, either actual or An who is hired in Oklahoma employee’s on the basis of the reason- but for an period indefinite of time is an at-will detrimental reliance on the terms able and employee whose employment may be termi- either, manual.5 nated party cause, without notice, and whose termination does opinion majority properly has dis- not in and of itself rise to a cause of first, second, posed possibly However, action.9 presumption of at- However, theory. question of whether cannot be considered abso- hospital is bound under the doctrine of is, rather, lute but under rebuttable certain estoppel promissory employ- is the —that circumstances. I adopt would not a rule ees’ detrimental reliance on the which would automatically incorporate an being for termination restricted to those manual into the con- listed manual —leaves substantial tract, and find that an may be question of material fact to be determined.6 only terminated in accordance with its The issue of whether the manual restricted terms, any more than I would embrace the only termination for cause renders summa- opposite regard rule which would ry judgment premature.7 manuals gratuitous as no more than ex- readily apparent pressions It is general company that the resolution policies question requires bearing of this fact have no on the promul- employee’s rights. contractual gation of some definitive standards guide in resolving trial courts Here, summary judgment for the em- ee’s equitable or claim based on an ployer though was sustained even the em- failure, employer’s either to follow the ter- ployee claimed only that the reasons for procedures mination delineated in an em- manual, were set forth in the unilaterally published manual by the only and that the reason that she could be expressly and not part made a case, fired was for cause. In a similar Airlines, Inc., original Keenan; employment agreement, to Continental v. 731 531, filed, Lines, Keenan, Powder Co. v. Brook 189 Va. 53 S.E.2d 5. Continental Air Inc. v. 731 P.2d 804, (1949); 708, (Colo.1987); 808 Rulon-Miller v. Intern. Bus. 711-13 Kinoshita v. Canadian 241, Airlines, 110, Cal.App.3d (Haw. Mach. 162 208 724 P.2d 116-17 Pacific 524, (1984); Langdon 1986); Saga Corp., Thompson Regis 529 Paper 569 St. 102 524, 219, 1081, (Okla.App.1976); (1984); P.2d Carter v. Kaska Wash.2d 685 P.2d Tous Shield, Community Agency, Ill.App.3d supra;
sia Action saint v. Blue Cross & Blue note (1974). Bank, 322 N.E.2d Matthews v. Federal Land S.W.2d Miller v. (Okla. (Mo.App.1986). Ind. Sch. Dist. No. P.2d 1980), policy adopted pub we held that a providing promissory estoppel lished 6. The board of education doctrine of as dis- (Second) written notification of reasons for cussed in the Restatement nonrenewal Contracts (1970) by implication incorporated of a teacher’s § contract was in has been into Okla- employment, cluded in the teacher’s homa common law. See Roxana Petroleum Co. Rice, creating (1924); duty part of the board. We 109 Okl. 235 P. policy Gregston, said: "We hold the statement here in 604 P.2d Bickerstaff question (Okla.App.1979). implication included in Mrs. employment, Miller’s contract of and conclude ' appellee authority delegated supra. Board had 7. See cases cited See also Inc., Hosp., to it to in turn create a it did Sherman v. so create Rutland Vt. (1985); expressed Tepker, a quoted on its in the above A.2d "Oklahoma’s At- notify appellant Heeding Warnings ‘General Policies’ Will Rule: rule to America’s contract, Law?”, giving Evolving Employment 373, of nonrenewal of her reasons 39 Okla.L.Rev. grant (1986). and to evidentiary hearing her a 414-17 upon therfor, having request her made written prior appears beyond Tepker, to final Board Action. It id. Board, question apparently believing it involved, Singh was not bound rule here v. Cities Service Oil (Okla. 1976). comply refused to with it." (Colo.1987),the Employers may Colorado be accountable for the summary Supreme judg- reversed a Court make, promises they policies and the they for reconsideration of and remanded adopt, promises policies when those *11 summary employer’s judg- motion for the employee induce form reliance or ment, questions employ- an the whether contract.12 This is a evolving delicate and may employer ee breach of sue area; therefore, process judicial the in- either the that an em- contract on terpretation sensitive, yet must be realistic. manual, published unilaterally distinguish It must carefully between de- as employer, may the serve a basis for veloped employer representations upon altering employment agree- the terms of an employee which an may justifiably rely, ment, employee the relied to or that general platitudes, vague assurances, procedures the detriment on termination praise, promises perma- indefinite contained in the manual. The Court held nent If employers continued 1) of establishing that: Because the burden have offered upon assurances which em- genuine the nonexistence of a issue of fact ployees may justifiably rely, the employee moving party,10 employer was on the the may recovering have showing damages had the a basis for initial burden that there in nothing the to record rebut the regard to the characterization of presumption employee that the was termin- the claim under classical contract or tort 2) If employer able at will. the makes such Obviously, theories.13 difficult issues of showing, the burden shifts the construction arise courts when con- ee to that there show is a triable factual testimony front concerning either an em- issue proce- as to whether the termination ployer’s ambiguous oral rep- statements or dures constituted an unilateral offer for employer resentations are made the employee's which the initial continued Nevertheless, an employee handbook. it acceptance constituted an instances, should be remembered in such provided consideration, requisite the or that employers do retain control actual over listing for termination con- cases, here, their fate. In most promise upon stituted a the employ- which employer writes disseminates the hand- ee reasonably 3) relied to her detriment. If upon book or employee document employee shows is a there material wrongful discharge relied claim.14 If issue in regard matters, of fact to these employers desire retain the discretion to summary judgment inappropriate, if the will, employee not, policies may fire at such summary easily does judgment be should be sustained.11 included in the handbook.15 Catrett, 317, -, Corp. 10. Celotex 477 U.S. vent contradictions when the terminated em- 2548, 2552, ployee challenges employer’s S.Ct. 91 L.Ed.2d. decision. Em- (1986). ployers place should have in a method to review proposed layoffs. in advance all terminations or Keenan, 11. Continental Air Lines su- prevent A arbitrary review mechanism will ter- pra. uniformity minations and ensure in termi- nations. In those instances where termination 7, supra. 12. See note warranted, employers should standardize people their Rule", termination methods. At least two Tepker, "Oklahoma’s At-Will see note should be involved and the supra. termination should properly be documented. The should Employers should review all written materi- be told the basis for the be als for reference be that could construed as given Tisman, opportunity to be heard. R. limiting ability to terminate and delete the Employee Unjust "How to missal,” Prevent Suits Dis- addition, employers reference. who want to Journal, 9, p. National Law Vol. right retain the to terminate at will should in- 11, 1987). (May conspicuous job clude a security disclaimer of Valley handbooks. The disclaimer Community Hosp., also 15. Liekvold v. View 544, 547, employer right should (1984); a unilateral 141 Ariz. modify policies. Employees Mettille, should review their Pine River State Bank v. 333 N.W.2d performance appraisal system, job (Minn.1983); document re- Morris v. Lutheran Med. deficiencies, Ctr., performance lated (1983); and establish 215 Neb. 340 N.W.2d improvement guidelines. steps pre- Bank, These will Mau v. Omaha Natl. 207 Neb. began working as a employers’ The summary The motion for judgment premised, apparently March nurse’s assistant sustained, on the County fact that the The Memorial of 1968. Comanche had no written or oral contract with the Employee Handbook is dated hospital, and that because she was an at- was fired on 1982-1984. employee, had absolute employee’s deposi- In the May her from its employ- tion, if asked it were her under- she was ment. Even when the basic facts are un- standing hospital must have cause disputed, summary motions for discharged. Her re- she could be before denied, should if evidence, under the was, sponse “It’s written black and *12 persons might reasonable reach different if Opposing counsel then asked white.” inferences or conclusions from the undis- relying on the manual when she she were puted my opinion, facts.17 In summary that statement. The an- made judgment employer for the improperly swered, employer’s The “Yes.” answers granted because the issues of whether the interrogatories response employee’s to the hospital manual anwas unilateral offer of acknowledged employer’s termi- employment, or whether the to act in nation faith and termination listed in the manual were bind- dealing. response interrog- In fair employer because of the atory question, “For other what non-listed ee’s reasonable and detrimental reliance reasons have been terminated?” thereon, Summary were not considered. answered, employer “Voluntary termi- judgment proper only pleading, when the nations and retirement initiated the em- affidavits, depositions, or admissions estab- addition, ployee. In had a we reduction genuine that there is any lish no issue as to 7th, 8th, January force and 9th 1985.” moving party material and that fact Here, need not extend the Hall doc- entitled as matter of law.18 mooring from its appraising sufficiency petition, trine My accepted petition into the arena of torts. rule is that a should concern is that not be dismissed for failure to state a claim question concerning there remains a of fact beyond appears unless it doubt that whether the only manual contained the rea- plaintiff prove sup- can no set of facts in fired, sons for which the could be port of the claim which would entitle her to employer and if the breached its contractu- reasons, relief.19 For these the trial court duty in employee. al its termination of the entering summary judgment erred in Tort remedies and contract remedies employer. favor not be available breach an em- ployer’s promise except just not to fire only employee proves
cause. It is after the legally intol- acted for
erable motives that courts should consider beyond compensation
remedies for the em-
ployee’s expectation reliance and interests.
Courts should strictly proof adhere faith, malice, public policy
bad breach as potential
a threshold breach for tort recov-
ery.16 17. Wilds v. Universal Resources (1980); Tepker, 662 N.W.2d "Oklahoma’s (Okla.1983); Munley v. ISC Financial Heeding Warnings
At-Will Rule: of Amer- House, Inc., (Okla.1978). Law?’’, Evolving Employment ica's see note supra. 18. Celotex Catrett, Corp. supra. see note Gibson, Rule”, 16.Tepker, Conley "Oklahoma’s At-Will see note 355 U.S. 78 S.Ct. (1957). supra. L.Ed.2d