Morris v. Lutheran Medical Center, 82-694

• Decision Date: 18 November 1983
• Docket Number: No. 82-694,82-694
• Citation: 340 N.W.2d 388,215 Neb. 677
• Parties: , 115 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 4966, 100 Lab.Cas. P 55,460 Lee Ann MORRIS, Appellant, v. The LUTHERAN MEDICAL CENTER, a Nebraska corporation, Appellee.
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

Page 388

340 N.W.2d 388

215 Neb. 677, 115 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 4966, 100 Lab.Cas. P 55,460

Lee Ann MORRIS, Appellant, v. The LUTHERAN MEDICAL CENTER, a Nebraska corporation, Appellee.

No. 82-694.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

Nov. 18, 1983.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Termination of Employment. When the employment is not for a definite term, and there are no contractual or statutory restrictions upon the rights of discharge, an employer may lawfully discharge an employee whenever and for whatever cause he chooses, without incurring liability.

2. Employment Contracts. Where an employment contract is for an indefinite duration, such indefiniteness by itself does not preclude job security provisions in an employee handbook from becoming part of the employment contract.

3. Demurrer: Appeal and Error. In reviewing the sustaining of a demurrer this court must treat the facts alleged in the petition as undisputed.

4. Pleadings: Appeal and Error. The court must accept the facts as set forth in the petition and may not notice or consider extrinsic matters in determining whether a pleading states a cause of action.

5. Demurrer. A general demurrer admits only such facts as are well pleaded and does not admit mere conclusions of the pleader.

John B. Ashford of Bradford, Coenen & Ashford, and Peter C. Bataillon of Sodoro, Daly & Sodoro, Omaha, for appellant.

Thomas J. Culhane of Erickson, Sederstrom, Leigh, Eisenstatt, Johnson, Kinnamon, Koukol & Fortune, P.C., Omaha, for appellee.

BOSLAUGH, HASTINGS, SHANAHAN and GRANT, JJ., and CAMBRIDGE, D.J.

HASTINGS, Justice.

This is an action for breach of an employment contract brought by Lee Ann Morris, plaintiff-appellant, a former employee of the defendant-appellee, The Lutheran Medical Center. The plaintiff asked for recovery of lost wages, both past and future. The District Court sustained the defendant's demurrer for failure to state a cause of action, and dismissed her amended petition.

According to the pleadings, Morris was hired as a nurse by the defendant on January 9, 1978, under an oral contract of employment for no definite term. On December 31, 1981, Morris was fired for misconduct. She timely appealed to the employee grievance committee, which, after a hearing, recommended that Morris be reinstated. The president of the hospital reversed the grievance committee's decision and terminated the plaintiff's employment.

In her amended petition Morris alleged that portions of the defendant's "Policy and Procedures" became part of the employee's contract, in particular that the grievance procedure should have been followed in terminating her employment. Specifically, she alleged: "One of the written benefits Plaintiff was promised by Defendant was compliance by Defendant with the employee grievance procedure." The plaintiff also alleged that the president failed to follow the grievance procedure in two respects: First, that the president failed to make his decision within 5 working days; and second, that the "President of Defendant hospital, contrary to the rules and procedures of the employee grievance procedure ... ignored the committee's findings and recommendations and reversed the committee's findings and upheld the action previously taken of termination."

Under Nebraska law it is quite clear that this court consistently follows the rule that "[w]hen the employment is not for a definite term, and there are no contractual or statutory restrictions upon the right of discharge, an employer may lawfully discharge an employee whenever and for whatever cause he chooses, without incurring liability." (Emphasis supplied.) Alford v. Life Savers, Inc., 210 Neb. 441, 442, 315 N.W.2d 260, 261 (1982); Feola v. Valmont Industries, Inc., 208 Neb. 527, 304 N.W.2d 377 (1981); Mau v. Omaha Nat. Bank, 207 Neb. 308, 299 N.W.2d 147 (1980).

In Mau this court found that a company handbook did not create employment for a definite period. Here, the employee does not claim that she was promised permanent employment. Instead, the plaintiff-employee is claiming that her job termination was wrongful because she had a contractual restriction upon the right of discharge, namely, the grievance procedure.

In the case at bar, the fact that plaintiff did not have a contract of employment for a specific term should not deprive her of the benefits of the grievance procedure. A reasonable inference can be drawn that the defendant intended to draw a benefit in employee relations from the procedure. This can be seen in the introduction to the grievance procedure, which states as follows: "Policy: Lutheran Medical Center recognizes that disagreements or grievances may arise from time to time over decisions or actions affecting an employee's job or his relations with other employees, or over claims of discrimination because of sex, race, color, age, religion or national origin. To assure employees of prompt and fair treatment when such circumstances arise, the following procedure is established." (Emphasis supplied.)

The procedure then provided that the "Committee ... shall discuss the grievance with any persons that it deems to be appropriate, shall consider existing...