Manning v. Norton Co.
| Decision Date | 07 January 1993 |
| Citation | 592 N.Y.S.2d 154,189 A.D.2d 971 |
| Parties | , 126 Lab.Cas. P 57,514 Judy A. MANNING, as Executrix of the Estate of William F. Manning, Deceased, Respondent, v. NORTON COMPANY, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
McNamee, Lochner, Titus & Williams, P.C. (Francis J. Smith, of counsel), Albany, for appellant.
John J. Ciavardoni, Albany, for respondent.
Before MIKOLL, J.P., and YESAWICH, MERCURE, CREW and CASEY, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Travers, J.), entered April 14, 1992 in Rensselaer County, which denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Decedent was employed by defendant for more than 25 years, starting out as a mail clerk in 1959. When he was discharged at the age of 46 in October 1985, decedent's position was that of Quality Assurance Engineer, which involved the processing of customer complaints. Alleging that his discharge constituted a breach of contract and was due to age discrimination, decedent commenced this action for compensatory and punitive damages. Upon decedent's death, his wife, the executrix of his estate, was substituted as plaintiff. Defendant thereafter moved for summary judgment, contending that decedent was an at-will employee and that his position was eliminated as part of a company-wide reduction in the work force brought about by adverse economic conditions. Supreme Court denied the motion, resulting in this appeal by defendant.
"[A]bsent an agreement establishing a fixed duration, an employment relationship is presumed to be a hiring at will, terminable at any time by either party * * * " (Sabetay v. Sterling Drug, 69 N.Y.2d 329, 333, 514 N.Y.S.2d 209, 506 N.E.2d 919 [citation omitted]. In Weiner v. McGraw-Hill, Inc., 57 N.Y.2d 458, 457 N.Y.S.2d 193, 443 N.E.2d 441, the Court of Appeals carved out an exception to at-will employment where the employer's right to terminate an at-will employee had been limited by express agreement, but "because of the explicit and difficult pleading burden, post-Weiner plaintiffs alleging wrongful discharge have not fared well" (Sabetay v. Sterling Drug, supra, 69 N.Y.2d at 334-335, 514 N.Y.S.2d 209, 506 N.E.2d 919) and the court has refused to relax the Weiner requirements (id., at 337, 514 N.Y.S.2d 209, 506 N.E.2d 919).
We conclude that plaintiff's allegations are insufficient to satisfy the Weiner requirements. The personnel guide referred to by plaintiff contains no express assurance that termination will be for cause only (see, Novinger v. Eden Park Health Servs., 167 A.D.2d 590, 591, 563 N.Y.S.2d 219, lv. denied, 77 N.Y.2d 810, 571 N.Y.S.2d 913, 575 N.E.2d 399; Marvin v. Kent Nursing Home, 153 A.D.2d 553, 554, 544 N.Y.S.2d 210). Nor can any express limitation on defendant's right to terminate decedent's employment be found either in the provisions of the personnel guide, which state a general policy for layoffs (see, Brown v. General Elec. Co., 144 A.D.2d 746, 748, 534 N.Y.S.2d 743), or in the alleged oral assurances that a job would be available for decedent after implementation of the work force reduction (cf., De Simone v. Skidmore Coll., 159 A.D.2d 926, 928, 553 N.Y.S.2d 240). In any event, plaintiff failed to show the type of detrimental reliance required by Weiner (see, Brooks v. Key Pharms., 183 A.D.2d 1011, 583 N.Y.S.2d 673; Novinger v. Eden Park Health Servs., supra, 167 A.D.2d at 592, 563 N.Y.S.2d 219; Marvin v. Kent Nursing Home, supra, 153 A.D.2d at 555, 544 N.Y.S.2d 210). Defendant is, therefore, entitled to summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's breach of contract cause of action.
Assuming that the evidence submitted by plaintiff establishes the necessary elements for a prima facie showing of age discrimination (see, Ashker v. International Business Machs. Corp., 168 A.D.2d 724, 725, 563 N.Y.S.2d 572), defendant met its burden of showing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parker v. Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc.
...written policy does not, in and of itself, limit the right to discharge an at-will employee"); Manning v. Norton Co., 189 A.D.2d 971, 972, 592 N.Y.S.2d 154, 155 (3d Dep't 1993); Fiammetta v. St. Francis Hosp., 168 A.D.2d 556, 557, 562 N.Y.S.2d 777, 778 (2d Dep't 139. S.S. Silberblatt Inc. v......
-
Skelly v. Visiting Nurse Ass'n of Capital Region Inc.
...940 [emphasis in original]. Oral assurances made during the course of employment are also insufficient (see, Manning v. Norton Co., 189 A.D.2d 971, 972, 592 N.Y.S.2d 154; Diskin v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., 135 A.D.2d 775, 777, 522 N.Y.S.2d 888, lv. denied 72 N.Y.2d 802, 530 N.Y.S.2d ......
-
Laverack & Haines, Inc. v. New York State Div. of Human Rights
...has been recognized as a legitimate, independent and nondiscriminatory reason for an employment decision" (Manning v. Norton Co., 189 A.D.2d 971, 972, 592 N.Y.S.2d 154; see also, Kipper v. Doron Precision Sys., 194 A.D.2d 855, 856, 598 N.Y.S.2d 399). Petitioner established that the terminat......
-
Fitzgerald v. Martin-Marietta
...supra, at 591, 563 N.Y.S.2d 219; see, Pearce v. Clinton Community Coll., 246 A.D.2d 775, 667 N.Y.S.2d 781; Manning v. Norton Co., 189 A.D.2d 971, 971-972, 592 N.Y.S.2d 154); rather, it promises nothing more than fair, equal and consistent disciplinary action. Although commendable, such gene......