Andrews v. Merritt Oil Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 13 November 1992 |
| Parties | 60 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 630, 124 Lab.Cas. P 57,274 Nedra ANDREWS v. MERRITT OIL COMPANY, INC., et al. 1911270. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
R. John Perry of Perry & Perry, P.C., Mobile, for appellant.
Paul D. Myrick of McRight, Jackson, Dorman, Myrick & Moore, Mobile, for appellees.
Nedra Andrews sued her former employer, Merritt Oil Company, Inc. ("Merritt Oil"), alleging wrongful termination. Merritt Oil filed a motion for summary judgment, to which Andrews did not respond. The trial court entered a summary judgment for Merritt Oil, and Andrews appeals.
The record shows that Merritt Oil employed Andrews as a store manager in one of its convenience stores in Mobile. On four occasions during the time Andrews managed the Merritt Oil convenience store, certain sums of money were unaccounted for. There were also a number of inventory shortages. Merritt Oil dispatched E.W. Barnette, one of its sales coordinators, to question Andrews and another employee about the missing money. Both Andrews and the other employee denied taking the money. Because the two were the only store employees who had access to the money and had the opportunity to steal it, Barnette offered them the option of taking a polygraph test. Both employees consented to take the test, but before administering it, the polygraph examiner asked them to sign forms regarding the administration of the test. Andrews refused to sign the documents, and the examiner refused to allow her to take the test. The other employee signed the forms, took the test, and passed it.
Barnette thereafter met with the president of Merritt Oil and with other company officials. After reviewing the situation, they concluded that Andrews should be discharged, because the evidence indicated that she may have been responsible for the missing money. Andrews subsequently filed this action.
Andrews's employment application clearly stated that she would be holding an at-will position and that she could be terminated at any time. Moreover, her copy of Merritt Oil's "Operational Policies and Procedures Manual" contained the following provision:
Under Alabama law, an employer has the right to discharge an employee for any reason, unless this right is altered by contract or by statute. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. v. Campbell, 512 So.2d 725 (Ala.1987). Andrews contends that her discharge was prohibited by federal statutes. First, she argues that her discharge was in violation of the Employee...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jenkins v. Allen
...State, 677 So. 3d 1275, 1276 (Ala. Crim. App. 1996) (same); Abbott v. Hurst, 643 So.2d 589, 593 (Ala. 1994) (same); Andrews v. Merritt Oil Co., 612 So.2d 409, 410 (Ala. 1992) (same); Rodriguez-Ramos v. J. Thomas Williams, Jr., M.D., P.C., 580 So.2d 1326, 1328 (Ala. 1991) ("This Court cannot......
-
Cottrell v. Nat. Collegiate Athletic Ass'n
...time on appeal; rather, our review is restricted to the evidence and arguments considered by the trial court." Andrews v. Merritt Oil Co., 612 So.2d 409, 410 (Ala.1992); Shiver v. Butler County Bd. of Educ., 797 So.2d 1086, 1089 (Ala.Civ.App.2000)(holding an appellate court will not conside......
-
McDonald v. Keahey
...raised for the first time on appeal.’ " Shankles v. Moore, 205 So. 3d 1253, 1258 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016) (quoting Andrews v. Merritt Oil Co., 612 So. 2d 409, 410 (Ala. 1992) ).12 Indeed, seemingly to the contrary, Foster argues that it is due quasi-judicial immunity -- an issue this court wil......
-
Perdue v. Green
...not argue that point in the trial court, and this Court cannot consider that argument for the first time on appeal. Andrews v. Merritt Oil Co., 612 So.2d 409, 410 (Ala.1992); see also Disch v. Hicks, 900 So.2d 399, 404–05 (Ala.2004) (applying rule to objector's appeal, but finding that argu......