Dykes v. Lane Trucking, Inc.
Decision Date | 16 December 1994 |
Citation | 652 So.2d 248 |
Parties | 130 Lab.Cas. P 57,878 Jimmy DYKES v. LANE TRUCKING, INC., et al. 1931399. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Donald C. McCabe, Daleville, for appellant.
John F. McDaniel, William J. McDaniel and Jack M. Bains, Jr., Birmingham, for appellees.
The plaintiff, Jimmy Dykes, appeals from a summary judgment for the defendants, Lane Trucking, Inc., and one of its employees, Tommy Andrews, in this action seeking damages for an alleged wrongful termination of employment. We affirm.
Dykes, a truck driver, alleged that Andrews had fraudulently induced him to accept employment with Lane Trucking by misrepresenting to him that he would not be required to drive an excessive number of hours. He further alleged that Lane Trucking had terminated his employment after he refused to make a delivery that, he says, would have placed him in violation of guidelines issued by the United States Department of Transportation restricting the number of hours that truck drivers can drive within a certain period of time. The defendants contend that Dykes was an employee-at-will and, therefore, that the trial court could have properly based its judgment on Dykes's employment status.
After carefully reviewing the record, we conclude that the summary judgment was proper. It is undisputed that Andrews, who was the only person who dealt directly with Dykes during the hiring process, did not personally offer Dykes lifetime employment or employment of any definite duration. Furthermore, the "Employee Personnel Policy Handbook," upon which Dykes partially relies in an attempt to come within the rule recognized in Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. v. Campbell, 512 So.2d 725 (Ala.1987), provided, in pertinent part, as follows:
When this Court held in Hoffman-La Roche that language contained in an employee handbook could create a unilateral contract of employment for a definite duration or under particular circumstances, it was careful to explain that the language used in the handbook had to be sufficiently clear and specific, so as to constitute an actual offer rather than a mere statement of policy:
Whether the language of an employee handbook is sufficiently clear and specific to constitute an offer of a unilateral contract is a question of law to be determined by the court. Campisi v. Scoles Cadillac, Inc., 611 So.2d 296 (Ala.1992). Based on the language of the employee handbook, we hold that Dykes was an at-will employee and, therefore, that his employment was subject to termination with or without cause. Because an at-will employee is, with certain statutory exceptions, see Ala.Code 1975, § 12-16-8.1 and § 25-5-11.1, subject to dismissal for any reason or for no reason, this Court, in Salter v. Alfa Ins. Co., 561 So.2d 1050 (Ala.1990), held that the mere showing of a loss of employment is legally inadequate to establish the element of damage in a fraud claim by an at-will employee. We reasoned that because such an employee is terminable at will, even for a malicious reason, there can be no legally compensable injury resulting from the employer's terminating the employment. See, also, Burrell v. Carraway Methodist Hospitals of Alabama, Inc., 607 So.2d 193 (Ala.1992). The record indicates that the only damage Dykes could have suffered would have stemmed from his loss of employment with Lane Trucking. The record does not support his assertion on appeal that Andrews's alleged misrepresentation induced him to leave his former job, and thus it does not bring this case within the holding of Kidder...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Brooks v. State
...So. 3d 940, 943 (Ala. 2007) (quoting Butler v. Town of Argo, 871 So. 2d 1, 20 (Ala. 2003), quoting in turn Dykes v. Lane Trucking, Inc., 652 So. 2d 248, 251 (Ala. 1994)). Consequently, Brooks's argument does not satisfy Rule 28(a)(10), Ala. R. App. P., and his argument that the circuit cour......
-
George v. State
...or argument.’ " Pileri Ind., Inc. v. Consolidated Ind., Inc., 740 So.2d 1108, 1110 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999), quoting Dykes v. Lane Trucking, Inc., 652 So.2d 248, 251 (Ala. 1994). Because Jennings has failed to present sufficient argument, authority, or citation to the facts in support of this ......
-
Ferguson v. Allen
...supported by sufficient authority or argument.' " Butler v. Town of Argo, 871 So. 2d 1, 20 (Ala. 2003) (quoting Dykes v. Lane Trucking, Inc., 652 So. 2d 248, 251 (Ala. 1994)).Borden argues that the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in holding that his brief failed to comply with Rule 28(a)(10......
-
Brooks v. State
...60 So. 3d 940, 943 (Ala. 2007) (quoting Butler v. Town of Argo, 871 So. 2d 1, 20 (Ala. 2003), quoting in turn Dykes v. Lane Trucking, Inc., 652 So. 2d 248, 251 (Ala. 1994) ). Consequently, Brooks's argument does not satisfy Rule 28(a)(10), Ala. R. App. P., and his argument that the circuit ......
-
Employment Law for the Solo and Small Firm Lawyer
...who comes in the door. --------Notes:1. Howard v. Wolff Broadcasting Corp., 611 So. 2d 307 (Ala. 1992).2. Dykes v. Lane Trucking, Inc., 652 So. 2d 248 (Ala. 1994).3. Ex parte Graham, 702 So. 2d 1215 (Ala. 1997).4. This mutual extra-contractual consideration of permanent employment has been ......