Madden v. Omega Optical, Inc., No. 94-654

• Docket Nº: No. 94-654
• Citation: 683 A.2d 386, 165 Vt. 306
• Case Date: July 12, 1996
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Vermont

Page 386

683 A.2d 386 165 Vt. 306, 132 Lab.Cas. P 58,145,
11 IER Cases 1606 Lee K. MADDEN, et al.
v.
OMEGA OPTICAL, INC. No. 94-654. Supreme Court of Vermont. July 12, 1996.

Page 388

[165 Vt. 308] Thomas W. Costello, John C. Mabie and Joel T. Faxon of Thomas W. Costello, P.C., Brattleboro, for plaintiffs-appellants.

J. Scott Cameron and David R. Putnam of Paterson & Walke, P.C., Montpelier, for defendant-appellee.

Before ALLEN, C.J., and GIBSON, DOOLEY, MORSE and JOHNSON, JJ.

ALLEN, Chief Justice.

Plaintiffs appeal an order granting defendant summary judgment on their claims of breach of contract, wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, and promissory estoppel. We affirm.

This lawsuit arose when defendant, Omega Optical, Inc., instituted a new personnel policy requiring all its employees to sign a Confidentiality, Disclosure, and Noncompetition Agreement (Agreement). The noncompetition portion of the Agreement prohibits an employee from participating in the thin-film, optical-coating business anywhere in the United States for a period of six months following termination of employment with defendant. Initially, only employees hired after January 1, 1991 were required to sign the Agreement. In August of [165 Vt. 309] 1991, after several employees quit to start a competing corporation, defendant changed the policy to require all employees to sign the Agreement as a condition of employment. Plaintiffs, five Omega employees, refused to sign the Agreement and were terminated as a result.

At the time plaintiffs were fired in August of 1991, they had been employed at Omega for between one and six years. When plaintiffs accepted employment with defendant, an employee handbook did not exist. In early 1990, however, defendant distributed a handbook to all employees. The handbook contained a review procedure, which read, "[D]ismissal from Omega/Omicron will be considered after two unsatisfactory reviews." The handbook also contained a disclaimer, which read, "[N]othing in this handbook or any other policy or communication changes the fact that employment is at-will for an indefinite period...."

Page 389

Plaintiffs alleged that even though they may have been hired as at-will employees, defendant unilaterally modified their at-will status through its employee handbook and by creating a company-wide practice of not firing employees without just cause. Plaintiffs argued that their termination for refusing to sign the noncompetition agreement did not constitute just cause, and therefore they were wrongfully discharged. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, and the trial court granted it, concluding that plaintiffs' evidence was insufficient to establish genuine issues of material fact.

I.

In reviewing a grant of summary judgment, this Court applies the same standard as the trial court. Ross v. Times Mirror, Inc., 164 Vt. 13, ----, 665 A.2d 580, 582 (1995). Summary judgment should be granted when, taking all allegations made by the nonmoving party as true, there are no genuine issues of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. "Where the moving party does not bear the burden of persuasion at trial, it may satisfy its burden of production by showing the court that there is an absence of evidence in the record to support the nonmoving party's case.... The burden then shifts to the nonmoving party to persuade the court that there is a triable issue of fact." Id. at ----, 665 A.2d at 583.

Plaintiffs argue that an issue of material fact exists regarding whether they had a contractual right to be terminated for just cause. [165 Vt. 310] As employees hired for an indefinite period, plaintiffs are presumed to have been at-will employees. Taylor v. National Life Ins. Co., 161 Vt. 457, 462, 652 A.2d 466, 470-71 (1993). Plaintiffs can overcome this presumption by presenting evidence that defendant unilaterally modified their at-will status. Id.; see Ross, 164 Vt. at ----, 665 A.2d at 584 ("An employer may limit its discretion to terminate an employee at will by instituting company-wide personnel policies."). Therefore, we must determine whether plaintiffs have met their summary judgment burden to show that a triable issue of fact exists regarding the issue of unilateral modification of their at-will status. Ross, 164 Vt. at ----, 665 A.2d at 582-83; see alsoPoplaski v. Lamphere, 152 Vt. 251, 254-55, 565 A.2d 1326, 1329 (1989) (summary judgment appropriate where, after adequate time for discovery, party with burden of proof at trial fails to make showing sufficient to establish existence of elements essential to case).

Plaintiffs first argue that the employee handbook is evidence that defendant unilaterally modified their at-will status such that they could be terminated only for just cause. In defendant's seventy-page employee manual, the only reference to dismissal is found in the "Review Procedure" section, which reads:

The purpose of the review is to check individual job performance and work habits, define and adjust job descriptions, provide information from fellow employees, set short and long-term goals, and clarify expectations for the future....

....

... Dismissal from Omega/Omicron will be considered after two unsatisfactory reviews.

Plaintiffs argue that the above statement creates a factual dispute regarding whether their at-will status was modified such that they could be terminated only for just cause. We disagree. Even if we assume that the above statement modified plaintiffs' at-will status, under no interpretation does the statement limit the causes for termination. At best, the statement in the handbook creates a disciplinary procedure for one cause--poor job performance--rather than limiting the causes for termination. As the trial court noted, "there is no specific statement [in the handbook] that limits grounds for dismissal to unsatisfactory performance ... [and] no statement that non-compliance with a workplace requirement would be an impermissible ground for termination." Therefore, even if the handbook modified plaintiffs' at-will status with respect to unsatisfactory[165 Vt. 311] performance by creating a disciplinary procedure, an issue we do not decide, plaintiffs could still be fired for reasons other than

Page 390

poor performance. ¹ See Foote v. Simmonds Precision Products Co., 158 Vt. 566, 571, 613 A.2d 1277, 1280 (1992) ("Even...