Sherman v. Rutland Hosp., Inc., No. 83-509
| Docket Nº | No. 83-509 |
| Citation | 146 Vt. 204, 500 A.2d 230 |
| Case Date | August 09, 1985 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Vermont |
Page 230
104 Lab.Cas. P 55,561
v.
RUTLAND HOSPITAL, INC.
Donald R. Powers, Brandon, for plaintiff-appellee.
Allan R. Keyes of Ryan Smith & Carbine, Ltd., Rutland, for defendant-appellant.
Before ALLEN, C.J., HILL, PECK and GIBSON, JJ., and DALEY, J. (Ret.), Specially Assigned.
ALLEN, Chief Justice.
The plaintiff, Lawrence Sherman, brought suit for wrongful termination of employment by the defendant, Rutland Hospital, Inc., and obtained a judgment of $30,000. His claim was that termination procedures, contained in the defendant's personnel[146 Vt. 205] policies manual, had been made a condition of his employment agreement,
Page 231
and had not been followed upon his termination.Upon appeal, the defendant first contends that, because the plaintiff was not hired for a definite term, he was an "at will" employee and so could be terminated at any time with or without cause. The defendant next contends that the evidence was legally insufficient to support a finding that the termination provisions of the manual had been made a part of the plaintiff's employment agreement. Finally, the defendant argues that the termination provisions were not breached.
The evidence at trial indicated that the plaintiff interviewed for the position of manager of the housekeeping staff on October 19, 1978. On that day he submitted an application which stated, as his reason for leaving his present employer, "Stable home, better salary." During the interview, he stated that he was looking for a position which would provide him with a stable home situation so his daughters could stay in one high school, a secure job, and a better salary.
At a second interview in November, he was given a copy of the hospital's personnel policy manual. Following that interview, he read the manual with particular interest in the area of job security. The discharge procedures set out in the manual read in part as follows:
Progressive discipline, for violations of Hospital and/or departmental policies, usually follows this sequence:
Step 1--First Offense: Verbal/Counselling Session
Step 2--Second Offense: Written/Counselling Session
Step 3--Third Offense: Warning Notice
Step 4--Discharge
The manual also stated that immediate discharge might follow certain types of flagrant misbehavior.
After the second interview, the plaintiff received a telephone call in which the position was offered to him and he accepted. Upon being asked at trial if there was any connection between the manual and his decision to accept employment, the plaintiff answered: "In what was previously said that it had excellent benefits, an excellent benefit package and job security."
Upon beginning work at the hospital in January, 1979, the plaintiff signed a card which read:
[146 Vt. 206] I have read and I understand my copy of the personnel policies of the Rutland Hospital. I have familiarized myself with the information in this book and understand that it constitutes the general personnel policies of this Hospital, and that in some instances policies may be added to or amended by more specific policies in each department and that I am governed by them.
The content of this manual is subject to change or amendment by the Board of Directors or the Executive Vice President. Personnel will be notified of any changes through the normal channels.
Sometime in the fall of 1979, the plaintiff was verbally informed by his supervisors that his aggressive management style was creating some problems among his staff. In February, 1980, he received a written evaluation which indicated that the problem still existed, but that he had made "positive progress in this area." There was also evidence that, later in the Spring of 1980, the plaintiff was again verbally informed of dissatisfaction with his management style.
In August, 1980, after a meeting between the housekeeping staff and the Director of Personnel,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McKenny v. John V. Carr & Son, Inc., No. 2:94-CV-30.
...In Vermont there is a rebuttable presumption that employment for an indefinite period is at will. Sherman v. Rutland Hosp., Inc., 146 Vt. 204, 207, 500 A.2d 230 (1985). The presumption may be overcome by evidence indicating that the employer expressly or by clear implication foreclosed its ......
-
Marcoux-Norton v. Kmart Corp., Civ. A. No. 5:91-CV-308.
...an indefinite term is an `at will' agreement, terminable at any time, for any reason or for none at all." Sherman v. Rutland Hosp., Inc., 146 Vt. 204, 207, 500 A.2d 230 (1985). This is simply a rule of contract construction, however, and imposes no substantive limitation on the right of con......
-
Raymond v. International Business Machines Corp., No. 2:95-CV-158.
...presumed to be employment at will, "terminable at any time, for any Page 748 reason or for none at all."2 Sherman v. Rutland Hosp., Inc., 146 Vt. 204, 207, 500 A.2d 230 (1985). See also McKenny v. John V. Carr & Son, Inc., 922 F.Supp. 967, 974 (D.Vt.1996). This presumption may be rebutted b......
-
Certified Question, In re, WJBK-TV2
...Piacitelli v. Southern Utah State College, 636 P.2d 1063 (Utah.1981) (educational institutions); Sherman v. Rutland Hosp., 146 Vt. 204, 500 A.2d 230 (1985); Benoir v. Ethan Allen, Inc., 147 Vt. 268, 514 A.2d 716 (1986); Barger v. General Electric Co., 599 F.Supp. 1154 (W.D.Va.1984) (applyin......
-
McKenny v. John V. Carr & Son, Inc., No. 2:94-CV-30.
...In Vermont there is a rebuttable presumption that employment for an indefinite period is at will. Sherman v. Rutland Hosp., Inc., 146 Vt. 204, 207, 500 A.2d 230 (1985). The presumption may be overcome by evidence indicating that the employer expressly or by clear implication foreclosed its ......
-
Marcoux-Norton v. Kmart Corp., Civ. A. No. 5:91-CV-308.
...an indefinite term is an `at will' agreement, terminable at any time, for any reason or for none at all." Sherman v. Rutland Hosp., Inc., 146 Vt. 204, 207, 500 A.2d 230 (1985). This is simply a rule of contract construction, however, and imposes no substantive limitation on the right of con......
-
Raymond v. International Business Machines Corp., No. 2:95-CV-158.
...presumed to be employment at will, "terminable at any time, for any Page 748 reason or for none at all."2 Sherman v. Rutland Hosp., Inc., 146 Vt. 204, 207, 500 A.2d 230 (1985). See also McKenny v. John V. Carr & Son, Inc., 922 F.Supp. 967, 974 (D.Vt.1996). This presumption may be rebutted b......
-
Certified Question, In re, WJBK-TV2
...Piacitelli v. Southern Utah State College, 636 P.2d 1063 (Utah.1981) (educational institutions); Sherman v. Rutland Hosp., 146 Vt. 204, 500 A.2d 230 (1985); Benoir v. Ethan Allen, Inc., 147 Vt. 268, 514 A.2d 716 (1986); Barger v. General Electric Co., 599 F.Supp. 1154 (W.D.Va.1984) (applyin......