Edwards v. Citibank, N.A.

• Decision Date: 21 June 1979
• Citation: Edwards v. Citibank, N.A., 418 N.Y.S.2d 269, 100 Misc.2d 59 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1979)
• Parties: , 115 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 4624 David EDWARDS, Plaintiff, v. CITIBANK, N. A., Defendant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

Page 269

418 N.Y.S.2d 269

100 Misc.2d 59, 115 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 4624

David EDWARDS, Plaintiff, v. CITIBANK, N. A., Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County, Part I.

June 21, 1979.

Cohn, Glickstein, Lurie, Ostrin & Lubell, Jonathan W. Lubell, Audrey J. Isaacs, New York City, for plaintiff.

Shearman & Sterling, New York City, for defendant.

MARTIN EVANS, Justice:

Plaintiff Edwards, a former employee of defendant Citibank, has brought this action for breach of contract and wrongful discharge. The gravamen of the complaint is that defendant Citibank wrongfully discharged plaintiff in reprisal for plaintiff having uncovered evidence of illegal foreign currency manipulation. Citibank has moved for summary judgment essentially claiming that plaintiff has stated no claim upon which relief can be granted. Based on the record before the Court, that motion must be granted as a matter of law.

Plaintiff has framed his complaint to allege three causes of action, one in contract, for breach of an alleged written contract, and two in tort, claiming violations both of public policy and his constitutional rights to freedom of speech and due process. For the reasons outlined below, none of these claims state a legally sufficient cause of action.

Plaintiff readily admits both that for the six years of his employment by defendant he had no formal written contract and no fixed term of employment. Rather, he contends that various staff handbooks and manuals, along with other literature setting out broad employment policy guidelines, comprise a written contract. Moreover, he claims that the effect of these documents is to give him a permanent position, unlimited in duration terminable by him at will, but by Citibank only for cause. Such a position is supported by neither logic nor law. First, it is utterly lacking in mutuality. Second, it is hornbook law that any contract for an indefinite period of time is terminable at the will of either party at any time. Watson v. Gugino, 204 N.Y. 535, 98 N.E. 18 (1912). Such a contract is terminable "for any reason or for no reason". Laiken v. American Bank & Trust Co., 34 A.D.2d 514, 308 N.Y.S.2d 111 (1st Dept., 1970). Third, the various manuals offered by plaintiff do not constitute a written employment contract, since they do not exclusively and completely define the terms and conditions of employment, its duration or the rate of compensation, i. e., all the essential elements of a contract of employment. Chin v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 96 Misc.2d 1070, 410 N.Y.S.2d 737 (1978), Unam. aff'd n. o. App.Div., 416 N.Y.S.2d 160 (1979). Consequently, these documents are no more than broad internal policy guidelines which cannot be held to embody the exclusive procedures for...