Smith v. Monsanto Co., 8412SC338

Decision Date04 December 1984
Docket NumberNo. 8412SC338,8412SC338
Citation71 N.C.App. 632,322 S.E.2d 611
CourtNorth Carolina Court of Appeals
Parties, 119 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2109 Lura S. SMITH v. MONSANTO COMPANY and Monsanto North Carolina, Inc. Edith B. JOHNSON v. MONSANTO COMPANY and Monsanto North Carolina, Inc.

Carter & Melvin by Stephen R. Melvin and Lester G. Carter, Jr., Fayetteville, for plaintiffs, appellants.

Smith, Moore, Smith, Schell & Hunter by Martin N. Erwin and Michael A. Gilles, Greensboro, for defendants, appellees.

HEDRICK, Judge.

Plaintiffs contend the trial court erred in granting summary judgment for the defendant because a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether defendant breached its contracts of employment with them. The employment contracts lacked a definite term and therefore were terminable at the will of either party. Still v. Lance, 279 N.C. 254, 182 S.E.2d 403 (1971). Plaintiffs' forecast of evidence indicates that defendant had a company policy, applicable to them, of providing employees subject to reduction in force with a choice between termination with severance pay or layoff with the possibility of recall for one year. Pursuant to company policy, defendant allowed plaintiffs to choose between termination and layoff. However, there is no evidence that plaintiffs contracted with defendant for the right to either termination with severance pay or layoff with the possibility of recall. This choice was a gratuitous benefit defendant conferred on plaintiffs after the parties had agreed on employment contracts which were terminable at will. This Court has previously held in similar circumstances that an employee has no contractual right on which to base a claim: "Defendant's personnel policies, which were amended after plaintiff was hired, were not expressly incorporated in plaintiff's contract, and without such inclusion defendant was not obligated to follow its personnel policies in dismissing plaintiff." Griffin v. Housing Authority, 62 N.C.App. 556, 557, 303 S.E.2d 200, 201 (1983). Thus plaintiffs had no right to recall and we need not decide if they presented evidence that defendant failed to recall them when it could have done so.

Plaintiffs also contend summary judgment was improper because their forecast of evidence tended to show that defendant should have been equitably estopped from defending on the basis that the contracts were terminable at will. In effect, plaintiffs argue that they surrendered their right to severance pay in response...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Norman v. Tradewinds Airlines, Inc., 1:02 CV 918.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Middle District of North Carolina
    • 21 Agosto 2003
    ...into a separately existing employment contract will the terms of the handbook become legally binding. Id. (citing Smith v. Monsanto Co., 71 N.C.App. 632, 322 S.E.2d 611 (1984)); see Salt v. Applied Analytical, Inc., 104 N.C.App. 652, 656-57, 412 S.E.2d 97, 99 (1991) (citing Rosby v. General......
  • Norman v. Tradewinds Airlines, Inc., 1:02CV918 (M.D.N.C. 3/24/2003)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. Middle District of North Carolina
    • 24 Marzo 2003
    ...into a separately existing employment contract will the terms of the handbook become legally binding. ld. (citing Smith v. Monsanto Co., 71 N.C. App. 632, 322 S.E.2d 611 (1984)); see Salt v. Applied Analytical. Inc., 104 N.C. App. 652, 656-57, 412 S.E.2d 97, 99 (1991) (citing Rosby v. Gener......
  • Rupinsky v. Miller Brewing Co.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • 16 Enero 1986
    ......Employment Security Commission, 290 N.C. 473, 226 S.E.2d 340 (1976); Smith v. Ford Motor Co., 289 N.C. 71, 221 S.E.2d 282 (1976); Still v. Lance, 279 N.C. 254, 182 S.E.2d ...at 259, 335 S.E.2d at 83-84. See Smith v. Monsanto Co., 71 N.C.App. 632, 322 S.E.2d 611 (1984); Griffin v. Housing Authority, 62 N.C.App. 556, 303 ......
  • Guy v. Travenol Laboratories, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • 4 Marzo 1987
    ...precludes the unilateral representations of an employer from forming part of the contract of employment. Smith v. Monsanto Co., 71 N.C.App. 632, 322 S.E.2d 611, 613 (1984); Still v. Lance, 279 N.C. 254, 182 S.E.2d 403, 406 The doctrine of employment at will apparently began in Edwards v. Se......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT