• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Employee Handbook!

  • Thread starter katrinagardener
  • Start date

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

K

katrinagardener

Guest
What is the name of your state? MI

What terminology in a "Employee Handbook" would distinguish an "At will Employee" vs. a contract employee? Any specifics?

Thanks in Advance!

And thank-you to all of you for answereing my never ending questions.

And BelizeBreeze you are still hired by me!
 


Some Random Guy

Senior Member
Do you have a written employment contract with the employer? A formal offer letter for employment doesn't count. I'm talking about a document that both you and the employer sign that says "Employment Contract" or something similar.
 

cbg

I'm a Northern Girl
SRG, this is a continuing question from this poster. She is quite determined that an employee handbook ought to be considered a contract.

Katrina, for the last time, if the handbook specifically says that employment is at will, then employment is at will. If the handbook specifically says that it is not a contract, that it is not a contract. If it doesn't say one way or the other, then ONLY an attorney who has read it in its entirety can say one way or the other. I've told you that before; the answer has not changed.

I'm happy to answer new questions you may have, but this handbook-as-contract obsession of yours is getting very old, very fast.
 
K

katrinagardener

Guest
Hi CBG! Thank-you!!!!!

:)
cbg said:
SRG, this is a continuing question from this poster. She is quite determined that an employee handbook ought to be considered a contract.

Katrina, for the last time, if the handbook specifically says that employment is at will, then employment is at will. If the handbook specifically says that it is not a contract, that it is not a contract. If it doesn't say one way or the other, then ONLY an attorney who has read it in its entirety can say one way or the other. I've told you that before; the answer has not changed.

I'm happy to answer new questions you may have, but this handbook-as-contract obsession of yours is getting very old, very fast.
Hi CBG,

Wow, hit a raw nerve with you!!!!! Sorry!!!

So, now what do you think about employer's that put too much information in their employee handbooks to lead employee's to believe that they are not "at will employee's? Guess what? That is exactly what my employer has done! Doesn't matter that they stated "at will" on the first page. It's the next 75 pages of the hand-book that matters.

Thank-you for your time!
 
K

katrinagardener

Guest
CBG!! I thought you were an attorney!

Wow,

All of your advice to me, and your demeaning words, and you are only an HR!! I am shocked! Now, I realize your derogatory comments to me! Go to Law School, before you start handing out advice to poor unsuspectiing people that have real problems!
 

BelizeBreeze

Senior Member
katrinagardener said:
Wow,

All of your advice to me, and your demeaning words, and you are only an HR!! I am shocked! Now, I realize your derogatory comments to me! Go to Law School, before you start handing out advice to poor unsuspectiing people that have real problems!
You really want a derogatory comment?

YOu really want to hear the CORRECT LEGAL ANSWER?

Because if you don't knock the petty bullS**T off I'll tell you exactly what you need to hear.
 
K

katrinagardener

Guest
What an Attorney you are Belize!

BelizeBreeze!

I want you on my side when it comes to legal issues! Wow, you must have been the star pupil in your Graduation Class!

So, what do you think? I found out from my attorney that my employer put to much info in their employee handbook. Thus, I have a case because too much information is too much information! They hung themselves out to dry!
 

cbg

I'm a Northern Girl
Katrina, would you hire someone for your HR department that didn't know the laws they are paid to manage for the company?

Since you don't like my advice, I'll leave you with one last word of it; then you can post all you like and I'll completely ignore you.

Since you are so convinced that the handbook should constitute a contract, SHOW IT TO A LOCAL ATTORNEY. That is the ONLY way you are going to find out if it is one of the very rare cases where a handbook reaches contract level, or not.
 

BelizeBreeze

Senior Member
katrinagardener said:
BelizeBreeze!

I want you on my side when it comes to legal issues! Wow, you must have been the star pupil in your Graduation Class!

So, what do you think? I found out from my attorney that my employer put to much info in their employee handbook. Thus, I have a case because too much information is too much information! They hung themselves out to dry!
So write to the administrator of this site and leave your attorney's name and number and I'll verify that you are not the liar I know you to be.
 
K

katrinagardener

Guest
Thank-you Belize

BelizeBreeze said:
You really want a derogatory comment?

YOu really want to hear the CORRECT LEGAL ANSWER?

Because if you don't knock the petty bullS**T off I'll tell you exactly what you need to hear.

Please tell me what I need to hear. I am all ears!

Thank-you for your legal insight!
 
K

katrinagardener

Guest
You offered BelizeBreeze I am waiting

:) I am waiting BelizeBreeze for your input like you offered. Do you think my attorney is scamming me? I don't know. What do you think?
 

BelizeBreeze

Senior Member
Since you won't be here too long and since IAAL hasn't come to give you his opinion, I will.

California has not adopted the stance that the Arizona Courts did in Demasse v. ITT Corp., 984 P.2d 1138, 1155 (Ariz. 1999). In fact, in Asmus v. Pacific Bell, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 179 (2000), the California Supreme Court has freed employers to modify work conditions that are described in handbooks, offer letters, or supervisory manuals, so long as they do so carefully.

To understand the impact of the court's ruling in Asmus, it is important to understand that employment relationships will often be analyzed in terms of whether the employer and employee have formed a contract, for example, to restrict the circumstances under which the employee can be terminated. Under California law, an employee is presumed to be an "at-will" employee, which means that the employment is for an indefinite period of time and can be terminated for any (legal) reason by either the employer or the employee.

Cal. Labor Code § 2922. Statements and policies issued by the employer in employee handbooks or supervisory manuals, however, may change an employee's at-will status into a contract term of employment. The California Supreme Court has long held that whether "an employer promises to confer a significant benefit on the employee, and . . . whether that promise was reasonably understood by the employee to create a contractual obligation" is a question of fact. Scott v. Pacific Gas and Elec. Co., 11 Cal. 4th 454, 464 (1995).

In Asmus The Supreme Court answered that yes, policies can be changed, modified, or withdrawn, but only under certain circumstances. "The general rule," the court wrote, "is that once the promiser determines after a reasonable time that it will terminate or modify the contract, and provides employees with reasonable notice of the change, additional consideration is not required."

The question to focus on in this discussion is whether or not the Employment is 'at - will' and if the specific clause stipulating that the policies contained within the Handbook do NOT constitute a 'contract' are binding on the parties.

Although these questions are a matter of fact for the court, for our purposes here we can reasonably infer that, based on the above cases, because an employer cannot change a policy which would interfer with employees' vested benefits, without 'reasonable notice' to the employees, and the 'policy' that all employees are 'at-will' is contained in the Handbook, it reasonably follows that the employer may not alter the 'at-will' status of the employee without prior 'reasonable' notice to the employee.

Furthermore, based on the stated 'policy' that the Handbook does not comprise a contract between the employer and employee, and based on the above cases regarding 'notification', we can also infer that absent notification of a change, the Handbook must be interpreted in it's plain language and the 'policy' that the Handbook is not a contract cannot be changed without 'reasonable notice'.

Does an employee have a 'vested benefit' in being an 'at-will' employee. That is also a question of fact for the courts. Does an employee have a 'vested benefit' in interpreting the Handbook in it's plain language when that language infers no contractural obligation on the parties? Again, a matter of fact for the court.

Now, I will await IAAL's opinion on the matter.
 
K

katrinagardener

Guest
ah Belize I am not in California

Belizebreeze,

I am not in California, so basically California laws do not apply to me and my situation.

Thank-you though for you assistance. Do you have anything for my State?

As a consumer of legal services I do find it necessary to research laws; due to the fact that a consumer can go to one lawyer, and than go to another lawyer, and get toatally different opinions.

I really do thank-you for your sense of humour, and your hard-&&& attempts in assisting me in my quest.

And by the way I really loved your top ten on another thread about "THE TOP 10 MOST TERRIBLE THINGS that can be said about you at a swinger's party." Even though this is not related to Labor and Employment laws!

That was hillarious!

Again, thank-you for your sense of humour to the plights of many "at will employee's" in the USA!
 

BelizeBreeze

Senior Member
Hertebise v Reliable Business Computers, Inc. 452 Mich 405 (1996)
The employer had argued that the Plaintiff was bound by an arbitration agreement contained in an employee handbook. This particular handbook also contained a provision providing that the employee was an "at will" employee.
The Michigan Supreme Court ruled that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable against an at will employee.

In Toussaint v. Blue Cross, 408 Mich. 579, 292 N.W.2d 880 (1980), the Michigan Supreme Court decided a case involving alleged employment contracts. In the Toussaint decision and its progeny, the courts held that the existence of an employment at will relationship can be rebutted by statements in employee manuals, personnel manuals, performance reviews, disciplinary rules and conceivably even by oral representations.

In a case arising shortly after the Toussaint decision, Novosel v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 495 F.Supp. 344 (E.D.MI 1980) the following language was held to conclusively rebut the existence of a contract for a specified term:


I certify that the information contained in this application is correct to the best of my knowledge and understand that falsification of this information is grounds for dismissal in accordance with Sears, Roebuck and Co. Policy. I authorize the references listed above to give you any and all information concerning my previous employment and any pertinent information they may have, personal or otherwise, and release all parties from all liability for any damage that may result from furnishing same to you. In consideration of my employment, I agree to conform to the rules and regulations of Sears, Roebuck and Co., and my employment and compensation can be terminated with or without cause, and with or without notice, at any time, at the option of either the Company or myself. I understand that no store manager or representative of Sears, Roebuck and Co., other than the president or vice-president of the Company, has any authority to enter into any agreement for employment for any specified period of time, or to make any agreement contrary to the foregoing.


That language was the basis on which the employer won summary judgments in virtually dozens of alleged employment contract cases following Novosel. As the Court said in Reid v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 790 F.2d 453, 461 (6th Cir. 1986)

"Every reported district court case involving a claim of unlawful discharge in the face of the language contained in the Sears’ application has resulted in summary judgments for Sears."

Furthermore, Michigan courts have held that whether disclaimers are enforceable can be a question of fact where factors reflecting a contrary intention exist.

In Dalton v. Herbruck Egg Sales, Co., plaintiff admitted reading and understanding a disclaimer in his handbook that he could be terminated "at any time ... without specific cause or reason." Yet the handbook also contained a progressive discipline policy. The Court of Appeals found that the tenor of the entire handbook was that all employees would be treated fairly and justly in accordance with the procedures set forth therein, and thus a jurycould decide to disregard the disclaimer. In Schipani v. Ford Motor Co. the Court of Appeals held that an employer's oral representations regarding duration of employment could override an express disclaimer in written materials.

The 'reasonable notice' doctrine employed in California is also the Michigan standard.

In Bankey v. Storer Broadcasting Co., the Michigan Supreme Court reaffirmed that a written "discharge for cause" provision could be revised by a later writing, provided the employee was given "reasonable notice". But in a companion case, Bullock v. Automobile Club Insurance Association of Michigan the Court indicated that implied contracts, once created, may create a legitimate expectation which subsequent employer policy changes cannot simply reverse.

In Bullock, the plaintiff claimed an oral promise of discharge for cause only. The defendant subsequently issued a policy manual indicating employment-at-will. The Court indicated that in the right factual circumstances of "reasonable expectation", the subsequent change could be considered only an offer of a contract change, permitting a jury to conclude that the previous implied contract was still enforceable.

Whether the policy was an alteration of the existing policy or the employee had 'notice' before accepting the terms of the employment, are a matter of fact for a court. However, the 'Reasonable Notice' standard does NOT apply absent an alteration of the Handbook / policy. If there are no alterations, there can be no reasonable notice expectation.

Even the Michigan courts have set limits on their new doctrine. In Schwartz v. Michigan Sugar Co., and subsequent cases, the courts have insisted that "a more subjective expectancy on the part of employee" is insufficient to create the "legitimate expectation" necessary to form an enforceable contract.

Actual conduct by the parties, oral statements, or written materials are at least necessary to form an implied contract. In addition, the more conservative federal courts (especially the Sixth Circuit) have engaged in guerilla warfare against the Toussaint doctrine, taking every opportunity within the guidelines established by the Michigan Supreme Court to limit the impact of the implied contract approach to the employment relationship.

The Employee manual you prooffered here includes TWO such disclaimers. First, the 'at-will' language of Toussaint and second, the specific language of 'non-contract' in the Reid decision. Furthermore, in your post there is no indication that the Handbook has undergone an alteration sufficient to invoke the 'reasonable notice' requirement.
 
K

katrinagardener

Guest
Thank-you Belize

Thank-you so much for your assistance! :D
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top