Loghry v. Unicover Corp.

• Decision Date: 20 July 1994
• Docket Number: No. 93-210,93-210
• Citation: 878 P.2d 510
• Parties: 128 Lab.Cas. P 57,753, 10 IER Cases 1108 Corey LOGHRY, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. UNICOVER CORPORATION, Appellee (Defendant).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Page 510

878 P.2d 510

128 Lab.Cas. P 57,753, 10 IER Cases 1108

Corey LOGHRY, Appellant (Plaintiff), v.UNICOVER CORPORATION, Appellee (Defendant).

No. 93-210.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

July 20, 1994.

Harold F. Buck of Buck Law Offices, Cheyenne, for appellant.

W. Perry Dray and Brandin Hay of Dray, Madison & Thomson, P.C., Cheyenne, for appellee.

Before GOLDEN, C.J., THOMAS, MACY and TAYLOR, JJ., and CARDINE, J.(Retired).

MACY, Justice.

AppellantCorey Loghry appeals from the district court's partial summary judgment which determined that a disclaimer of contract in a personnel handbook was conspicuous and that Loghry was an "at-will" employee whom AppelleeUnicover Corporation could discharge with or without having cause and without adhering to an internal disciplinary process.

We affirm.

Loghry presents these issues:

Summary judgment was erroneously entered to determine adversely, as a matter of law, Plaintiff's employment termination claims which rights were claimed to arise from the employer's Personnel Policy Handbook and the understanding of Plaintiff/Employee regarding her employment status when discharged without notice or hearing to arise from:

A.Express contract;

B.Implied contract regarding employee termination; or

C.Promissory estoppel.

Unicover brings these questions for our review:

I.Was AppellantCorey Loghry employed at will with AppelleeUnicover Corporation, subject to discharge at any time for any reason?

II.Was AppellantCorey Loghry's appeal of a W.R.C.P. 54(b) final order untimely, so as to deprive this Court of jurisdiction to hear this appeal?

Loghry was discharged from her employment with Unicover after she reported what she believed to be a violation of Unicover's policy regarding trade secrets and confidentiality of company operations.She filed a complaint in the district court on March 12, 1993, alleging that she had been discharged from her employment in violation of the contractual rights which arose under Unicover's personnel handbook.Unicover answered the complaint and filed a motion for a partial summary judgment.The district court granted a partial summary judgment on June 7, 1993, in favor of Unicover, finding that Loghry was an "at-will" employee and that Unicover's disclaimer, which was attached to its personnel handbook and which had been acknowledged by Loghry, was conspicuous and precluded any alteration of Loghry's "at-will" status.The district court also determined that, in accordance with W.R.C.P. 54(b), no just reason existed for delay and directed that a final judgment be entered, making that partial summary judgment immediately appealable.10 CHARLES ALAN WRIGHTETAL., FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2654(1983).We note, however, that a W.R.C.P. 54(b) certification is subject to review in this Court for a determination as to whether certification would further the interests of judicial economy and the sound administration of the appellate process.Id., at § 2659.

On June 12, 1993, Loghry moved to amend her complaint.According to the certificate of service attached to the motion to amend the complaint, Loghry mailed a copy of the motion to Unicover on that date; however, the motion was not stamped as being filed in the district court until July 13, 1993, twenty-one days after the resistance to the motion had been filed.On July 19, 1993, Loghry filed a motion for reconsideration of the partial summary judgment.Not only was that motion filed untimely, but the time for taking an appeal from that partial summary judgment had expired on July 7, 1993.W.R.C.P. 59; W.R.A.P. 2.01.On July 22, 1993, Loghry filed a motion for relief from the judgment or, in the alternative, to modify the judgment under W.R.C.P. 60.That motion was also untimely filed because it had not been filed within a reasonable time after the judgment had been entered.W.R.C.P. 60(b).The district court entered an order on August 18, 1993, stating that it had erroneously included the W.R.C.P. 54(b) certification in the partial summary judgment, denying the motion to reconsider the partial summary judgment, and granting Loghry's motion to amend her complaint.Loghry filed her amended complaint, ¹ alleging three claims for relief: breach of contract, promissory estoppel regarding written policies, and promissory estoppel regarding oral representations made by a Unicover officer.Unicover answered that complaint and again filed a motion for a partial summary judgment.The district court entered a final order on September 13, 1993, granting a partial summary judgment in favor of Unicover to the same effect as was granted in its original judgment and including a W.R.C.P. 54(b) certification.Loghry filed a timely notice of appeal from the second partial summary judgment.The district court stayed the trial on the remaining claim in this matter on December 1, 1993, pending resolution of this appeal.

We must first determine whether this appeal should be dismissed because Loghry failed to take an appeal from the first partial summary judgment.If she had elected to file an appeal from that judgment, she would have had to have done so within thirty days of the entry of the first partial summary judgment.W.R.A.P. 2.01.We are unable to find any instructive precedents or legal reasoning which can be applied to the rather muddled course this case has followed to date.Since we are unable to conclude that the appeal under consideration was untimely filed, we hold that we have jurisdiction to consider the matters presented.

Unicover contends that the disclaimer to its personnel handbook which it issued to Loghry was conspicuous and served to preclude the creation of any contractual rights and to fully preserve Loghry's status as an "at-will" employee who could be discharged with or without cause."In Wyoming, employment is presumed to be at-will; however, '[a] handbook may change the employer's unfettered right to discharge an employee.' "Sanchez v. Life Care Centers of America, Inc., 855 P.2d 1256, 1257(Wyo.1993)(quotingLeithead v. American Colloid Company, 721 P.2d 1059, 1062(Wyo.1986), and citing Alexander v. Phillips Oil Company, 707 P.2d 1385(Wyo.1985);andMobil Coal Producing, Inc. v. Parks, 704 P.2d 702(Wyo.1985)).See alsoLincoln v. Wackenhut Corporation, 867 P.2d 701(Wyo.1994).

Loghry contends that the personnel handbook required her to undertake an obligation and a responsibility to protect trade secrets and confidential matters, to prevent them from being disclosed outside of Unicover, and to immediately report any incident to Unicover's director of security.Loghry alleged that an incident came to her attention, that she reported the incident to a Unicover officer, and that she was discharged for having made the very report which she was required to make by the personnel handbook.Loghry also alleged that Unicover...