Matagorda County Hosp. Dist. v. Burwell
| Decision Date | 24 February 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 03-0111.,03-0111. |
| Citation | 189 S.W.3d 738 |
| Parties | MATAGORDA COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT, Petitioner, v. Christine BURWELL, Respondent. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Mark A. Keene, C. Dean Davis, Davis & Davis, P.C., Austin, for Petitioner.
Lynn J. Klement, Klement & Burridge, L.L.P., Angleton, for Respondent.
The dispositive issue in this case is whether a statement in a personnel policy manual that "[e]mployees may be dismissed for cause" constitutes an agreement that dismissal may be only for cause, thereby modifying the at-will employment relationship. We hold it does not and therefore reverse the judgment of the court of appeals1 and render judgment for petitioner.
Respondent Christine Burwell had been employed by petitioner Matagorda County Hospital District for nearly ten years as a collections supervisor when she was placed on probation and later terminated. The District cited her poor attitude, breaches of patient confidentiality, and unprofessional conduct as reasons for its decision, all of which Burwell disputed. Burwell, then 52, sued for age discrimination and breach of employment contract. The trial court granted summary judgment for the District on the contract claim, but the court of appeals reversed and remanded.2 A jury then found for Burwell on her contract claim but against her on the discrimination claim. The trial court rendered judgment on the verdict, and only the District appealed, contending in part that there was no evidence of breach of contract. This time, a divided court of appeals affirmed.3
The District had a personnel policy manual, section 18 of which stated that "[e]mployment at the Hospital is by mutual arrangement and may be terminated by either the employee or the employer." But section 18 went on to provide that "[a]ll employee records will indicate the nature of termination which will be" for specifically listed reasons — either resignation, quitting, layoffs, dismissal, termination during a probationary period, or retirement. Regarding dismissal, the manual stated:
e. Dismissal — Employees may be dismissed for cause such as insubordination, serious misconduct, or for inability to perform the duties of their job satisfactorily. Department Heads and Supervisors may place an employee on suspension but all dismissal action must be reviewed by the Personnel Officer and approved by the Administrator before action will be taken. Dismissal will be classified as follows:
(1). Dismissal with Notice — Employees judged incapable of performing the duties of their job satisfactorily and have worked beyond the probationary period will receive two weeks notice or two weeks pay in lieu of notice, at the discretion of the Department Head.
(2). Dismissal without Notice — Serious violations of policy. Employee will receive no terminal benefits.
Burwell contends that this provision modified her at-will employment and permitted her to be dismissed only for cause. The court of appeals agreed, stating that "the manual clearly provides that employees may only be terminated for the inability to satisfactorily perform their job or for serious violations of hospital policy."4
The court of appeals misread the manual. It plainly provides that dismissal may be for cause, but it nowhere suggests that dismissal may be only for cause, and that limitation cannot simply be inferred. As we stated in Montgomery County Hospital District v. Brown:
For well over a century, the general rule in this State, as in most American jurisdictions, has been that absent a specific agreement to the contrary, employment may be terminated by the employer or the employee at will, for good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all.5
Even assuming that the employee manual created a contract between the District and its employees, and it may not have, a statement that an employee may be dismissed for cause is not a specific agreement that an employee may be dismissed only for cause. Nor was the manual's requirement that employee records state one of several bases for termination a specific agreement to alter Burwell's at-will employment, as the court of appeals suggested.6 On its face, the requirement pertained only to the District's record-keeping.
The court of appeals noted that Burwell understood as a supervisor that dismissal could only be for cause,7 but her subjective understanding could not create a contract with the District. As we have said:
It is elementary that if there is no ambiguity, the construction of the written instrument is a question of law for the Court. It...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miller v. Raytheon Aircraft Co.
...at FOC are employed on an "at will" basis, and expressly states that it does not constitute a contract. See Matagorda County Hosp. Dist. v. Burwell, 189 S.W.3d 738, 739-40 (Tex.2006) (holding employer's manual stating that employee "may" be dismissed for cause did not modify at-will employm......
-
County of Dallas v. Wiland
...to continued employment that is considered a protected property right for purposes of the Due Process Clause."). 34. 189 S.W.3d 738, 738 (Tex.2006) (per curiam). 35. TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE § 158.012("(a) An employee who, on a final decision by the commission, is demoted, suspended, or removed......
-
Gonzalez v. Harlingen Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist.
...a specific agreement that an employee may be dismissed only for cause” altering the at-will relationship. Matagorda County Hosp. Dist. v. Burwell, 189 S.W.3d 738, 740 (Tex.2006) ; see also Evans v. City of Dallas, 861 F.2d 846, 849–50 (5th Cir.1988) (analyzing employee handbook as a whole t......
-
CERx Pharmacy Partners, LP v. Provider Meds, LP (In re Providerx of Grapevine, LLC)
...intended but failed to say. Id. at 127. Thus, “it is objective, not subjective, intent that controls.” Matagorda Cnty. Hosp. Dist. v. Burwell, 189 S.W.3d 738, 740 (Tex.2006) ( per curiam) ( citing City of Pinehurst v. Spooner Addition Water Co., 432 S.W.2d 515, 518 (Tex.1968)). A court must......
-
Employer Rules and Policies
...by an agreement not to terminate the employee except under clearly specified circumstances. Matagorda County Hosp. Dist. v. Burwell, 189 S.W.3d 738, 740 (Tex. 2006); Montgomery County Hosp. Dist. v. Brown , 965 S.W.2d 501 (Tex. 1998). Indefinite comments, encouragements, or assurances are n......
-
Employment Relationship Defined
...Inc. , 946 F.2d 423, 426 (5th Cir. 1991) (calling Aiello an “exceedingly close case”); Matagorda County Hosp. Dist. v. Burwell , 189 S.W.3d 738 (Tex. 2006) (on petition for review, Supreme Court held that employee manual did not modify at-will employment relationship). The Texas Supreme Cou......
-
Discovery
...interpretations. In Matagorda County Hospital Dist. v Burwell , 94 S.W.3d 75 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2002), rev’d on other grounds , 189 S.W.3d 738 (Tex. 2006), the court held that supplementation of witness statements that occurred on the last day of the §40:3 Tൾඑൺඌ Eආඉඅඈඒආൾඇඍ Lൺඐ 40-26 ......
-
Employer Rules and Policies
...by an agreement not to terminate the employee except under clearly specified circumstances. Matagorda County Hosp. Dist. v. Burwell, 189 S.W.3d 738, 740 (Tex. 2006); Montgomery County Hosp. Dist. v. Brown , 965 S.W.2d 501 (Tex. 1998). Indefinite comments, encouragements, or assurances are n......