Smith v. Reynolds Metals Co.
| Decision Date | 29 August 1986 |
| Citation | 497 So.2d 93 |
| Parties | Tami Lea SMITH v. REYNOLDS METALS COMPANY. 85-324. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Robert W. Beasley of Potts, Young, Blasingame & Putnam, Florence, for appellant.
J. Michael Tanner of Almon, McAlister, Ashe, Baccus & Tanner, Tuscumbia, for appellee.
Tami Lea Smith appeals from a summary judgment granted in favor of Reynolds Metals Company on her breach of contract and misrepresentation claims. We affirm as to the breach of contract claim and reverse as to the misrepresentation claim.
Reynolds owns and operates four plants in the quad-cities area: the Alabama Reclamation Plant, the Alloys Plant, the Reduction Plant, and the Sheffield Plant. The plants are operated separately and have separate locations.
Prior to the summer of 1985 all four plants sponsored summer employment programs for college students whose parents worked at the plants. Each plant operated the program separately from the other plants, but occasionally exchanged students with some of the other plants if it needed students with particular skills.
The Alloys Plant was the only plant which sponsored a student employment program in the summer of 1985. Only students whose parents worked at the Alloys Plant qualified for the program, since the other plants did not sponsor such a program.
Smith was aware that in summers past Reynolds had hired college students who were children of Reynolds employees. Smith's father was employed at the Alabama Reclamation Plant. In early 1985, at Smith's request, her mother contacted Reynolds (the mother stated that she did not call the Reclamation Plant, but that she did not know which plant she called) to inquire if it would be hiring summer student employees. She was told that it probably would be, but that a parent had to work for Reynolds. Smith's mother informed them that her husband worked for Reynolds. She did not specify at which plant he worked. She was also told that Reynolds would be taking applications during the week of spring school vacation.
On March 15, 1985, Smith filled out an application for summer employment with the Alloys Plant. The application was one page in length, front and back, and had a slip of paper attached to the top of the front which requested the name of the parent who worked at the Alloys Plant and the name of the department in which the parent worked, and which asked whether the parent was paid at an hourly basis or was salaried. Smith testified that when she turned in her application to the clerical staff in the personnel office she informed them that she did not know which department her father worked in but that she knew he worked in reclamation. She further testified that the clerical staff told her not to worry, that they would look up the department for her.
On or about May 13, 1985, Smith received a letter from Dick Sanderson, personnel representative of the Reynolds Alloys Plant, which offered her summer employment. The pertinent parts of the letter were as follows:
The last paragraph of the letter stated that if Smith was unable to accept the offer, she should notify Sanderson by May 24, 1985.
Smith reported to the Reynolds personnel office on May 28, 1985, where an orientation session was held for the participants in the summer program. During the session Sanderson inquired whether there were any applicants who could not work the full twelve weeks. The applicants were also requested to fill out and sign certain documents which were necessary to process their employment. Included among these documents was a form entitled "Salary Employment Notification," which was an employment contract that specified the compensation rate and schedule, and stipulated that either party could terminate the contract at any time.
Smith's employment was terminated after three weeks of work because Sanderson discovered that she did not meet the policy requirements for the summer program, in that her father was not employed at the Alloys Plant. Smith was unable to obtain summer...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Morris
...Court held that an employee could sue for a fraudulent misrepresentation that occurred before her employment. [In] Smith v. Reynolds Metals Co., 497 So.2d 93 (Ala.1986), the plaintiff contended that the employer misrepresented to her that she was qualified for summer employment. The Court a......
-
NTA Graphics S., Inc. v. Axiom Impressions, LLC
...it had been intentional." Coaker v. Washington Cty. Bd. of Educ. , 646 So. 2d 38, 42 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993) (citing Smith v. Reynolds Metals Co. , 497 So. 2d 93 (Ala. 1986) ). "Consequently, the mere assertion of that to be true which is not true, although believed to be true, when made to b......
-
Kelly v. Uhc Management Co., Inc., CV 96-B-1047-S.
...the plaintiff[s] suffered damages." Intercorp., Inc. v. Pennzoil Co., 877 F.2d 1524, 1534 (11th Cir.1989) (citing Smith v. Reynolds Metals Co., 497 So.2d 93, 95 (Ala.1986)); accord Harris v. M & S Toyota, Inc., 575 So.2d 74, 76 (Ala.1991); Ala Code § 6-5-101 (1993). The misrepresentation is......
-
Forbus v. Sears Roebuck & Co.
...contract is only relevant to explain why the new arrangement was offered and accepted. The Retirees rely on Smith v. Reynolds Metals Co., 497 So.2d 93 (Ala.1986) in support of their argument that they should be allowed to maintain their fraud claims. In Reynolds, the court upheld the entry ......