Hicks v. Baylor University Medical Center

• Decision Date: 30 March 1990
• Docket Number: No. 05-89-00451-CV,05-89-00451-CV
• Citation: 789 S.W.2d 299
• Parties: 119 Lab.Cas. P 56,649 William Edward HICKS, Appellant, v. BAYLOR UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, Appellee.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 299

789 S.W.2d 299

119 Lab.Cas. P 56,649

William Edward HICKS, Appellant, v. BAYLOR UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, Appellee.

No. 05-89-00451-CV.

Court of Appeals of Texas Dallas.

March 30, 1990.

Rehearing Denied May 29, 1990.

John L. Burke, Dallas, for appellant.

Stephen N. Wakefield, Dallas, for appellee.

Before ENOCH, C.J., and PRESLAR ¹ and SMITH ², JJ.

OPINION

ENOCH, Chief Justice.

This appeal arises from a suit for wrongful discharge. Appellant, William Edward Hicks, sued his former employer, Baylor University Medical Center (Baylor), after he was released from his position as a janitor. The issues on appeal are: 1) whether Baylor's employee handbook created contractual rights which obviated application of the employment-at-will rule; and 2) whether there is an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the employer-employee relationship. The trial court granted summary judgment for Baylor. We affirm.

Facts

In November 1982, Baylor employed Hicks for an indefinite period. Subsequently, Baylor distributed an employee handbook to Hicks. On the evening of March 25, 1986, two Baylor security officers alleged that they approached Hicks at work and observed him swallow a marijuana cigarette. Although the security officers searched Hicks, they found no marijuana or other drug on his person. Hicks insists that he did not possess, use, or swallow marijuana at any time during his employment with Baylor. Hicks took a polygraph examination on April 4, 1986, at the request of his employer. ³ During the examination, he again denied the allegations that he used marijuana during his employment with Baylor. On April 7, 1986, Hicks was discharged. Thereafter, he made a claim for unemployment benefits. Baylor opposed the claim and asserted that Hicks was discharged for misconduct connected with his work, which was founded upon the allegation that he possessed or used marijuana.

Summary Judgment

Following his dismissal, Hicks filed the instant suit. Baylor moved for summary judgment on the following grounds: 1) the cause of action for wrongful discharge is barred because there is no agreement or contract between the parties that limits Baylor's right to discharge Hicks at will, and the circumstances for the discharge do not give rise to any recognized exception to the employment-at-will rule; and, in the alternative, 2) even if an employment contract does exist, there is good cause for discharge because Baylor's policies prohibit the use of marijuana and other illegal drugs. The trial court rendered summary judgment for Baylor.

In reviewing the granting of a summary judgment, we must accept as true the nonmovant's summary judgment evidence and make every reasonable inference in the nonmovant's favor. See Nixon, 690 S.W.2d at 548-49. To sustain the summary judgment, the movant must establish as a matter of law that no genuine issue of material fact exists. Sabine Pilot Service, Inc. v. Hauck, 687 S.W.2d 733, 734 (Tex.1985). To prevail as a defendant, movant must negate, as a matter of law, one or more elements of each of the plaintiff's causes of action or prevail as a matter of law on a defense to each of the plaintiff's causes of action. Rosas v. Buddie's Food Store, 518 S.W.2d 534, 537 (Tex.1975); Adam Dante Corp. v. Sharpe, 483 S.W.2d 452, 455 (Tex.1972).

When a court's order does not specify the grounds relied on for its ruling, summary judgment will be affirmed if any of the theories advanced are meritorious. Carr v. Brasher, 776 S.W.2d 567, 569 (Tex.1989); Malooly Bros., Inc. v. Napier, 461 S.W.2d 119, 121 (Tex.1970). As the trial court in granting Baylor's motion for summary judgment did not specify the grounds relied upon for its ruling, it will be affirmed if Baylor can show that it has negated at least one element of each cause of action asserted by Hicks and that there is no material issue of fact as to the truth of its contentions. Carr, 776 S.W.2d at 569; Borg Warner Corp. v. C.I.T., 679 S.W.2d 140, 142 (Tex.App.--Amarillo 1984, writ ref'd n.r.e.).

Points of Error

Hicks raises nine points of error on appeal. In his first three points of error, Hicks alleges that his employment was not terminable at will. He contends that the employee handbook modified his at-will employment contract and imposed contractual obligations on Baylor to discharge him only upon a showing of good cause and in accordance with the terms of the handbook. In points of error four and five, Hicks claims that the trial court erred in granting Baylor's motion for summary judgment because there are fact issues as to whether either he or Baylor breached the employment contract. In points of error six through eight, Hicks alleges that the employee handbook created a property right in continued employment, and that he was denied due process of the law because Baylor discharged him without following the procedures in the handbook. In his ninth point of error, Hicks asserts that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because it precluded him from asserting a cause of action for Baylor's breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing which exists or which should exist within the employer-employee relationship.

Employee Handbook

We address points of error six through eight first. Texas courts have traditionally followed the employment-at-will rule which provides that, absent any existing statutory prohibitions, public policy exceptions, or specific contract terms or express agreements to the contrary, when an employment contract provides for an indefinite term of service, either party may put an end to it at will, with or without cause. McClendon v. Ingersoll-Rand Co., 779 S.W.2d 69, 70 (Tex.1989); Eastline & R.R.R. Co. v. Scott, 72 Tex. 70, 10 S.W. 99 (1888); Berry v. Doctor's Health Facilities, 715 S.W.2d 60, 61 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1986, no writ); Mitsubishi Aircraft Int'l, Inc. v. Maurer, 675 S.W.2d 286, 289 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1984, no writ). In the present case, Hicks was employed for an indefinite period and has no basis for challenging his discharge unless the employee handbook gave him a contractual right and imposed a concomitant obligation on Baylor.

Texas courts have consistently held that general company manuals or handbooks, if unaccompanied by an express agreement or written representation regarding procedures for discharge of employees, do not constitute written employment agreements immune from the at-will rule. Benoit v. Polysar Gulf Coast, Inc., 728 S.W.2d 403, 406 (Tex.App.--Beaumont 1987, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Vallone v. Agip Petroleum Co., 705 S.W.2d 757, 759 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1986, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Totman v. Control Data Corp., 707 S.W.2d 739, 744 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1986, no writ); Reynolds Mfg. Co. v. Mendoza, 644 S.W.2d 536, 539 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1982, no writ); see also Joachim v. A.T. & T. Information Sys., 793 F.2d 113, 114 (5th Cir.1986) (guidelines in an employee handbook did not alter the status of employee who was employed for indefinite period after one year of training, and, thus, employee was an employee-at-will who had no basis for challenging his discharge under Texas law).

The court in Reynolds rejected the claim that the employee handbook gave the employee a protectable contract right in continued employment, relying, in part, on the fact that Reynolds retained the right to amend or withdraw the handbook. The court held that absent an express reciprocal agreement dealing with procedures for discharge, employee handbooks "constituted no more than general guidelines" and did not create contractual rights for employees. Reynolds, 644 S.W.2d at 539. In Berry, this Court held that an employee handbook does not circumscribe an employer's ability to dismiss an employee-at-will, where the employee signed a form acknowledging receipt and reading of a handbook which contained express disclaimers that it did not constitute an employment agreement and which indicated that it was subject to unilateral change by the employer at any time. Berry, 715 S.W.2d at 62.

The identical situation exists in this case. In connection with the receipt of the employee handbook, Hicks signed an acknowledgment card that specifically stated that the employee handbook did not constitute a contract of employment and that the information in the handbook was subject to change and could be modified, superceded, or even eliminated at any time. The acknowledgment card, signed by Hicks and dated August 5, 1983, contains the following language:

I have received my copy of the employee booklet for Baylor University Medical Center, which outlines the policies of the medical center and my responsibilities as an employee. I will read the information in this booklet and I understand that the information contained in it does not constitute a contract between me and the medical center.

Since the information in this booklet is subject to change, it is understood that any changes in Medical Center policies may modify, supercede, or eliminate the policies listed. Medical Center personnel will be notified of any policy changes through the...