Hayes v. Eateries, Inc.
905 P.2d 778, 11 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 110, 66 O.B.A.J. 3281 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Vague oral assurances of continued employment contingent on satisfactory performance do not create an implied contract altering at-will status. Furthermore, an employee discharged for reporting a co-worker's criminal activity against the employer's private interests, such as embezzlement, does not have a claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy.
Facts:
- John M. Hayes was employed at a Garfield’s restaurant, owned by Eateries, Inc., for approximately two years.
- Hayes was recently promoted to the position of assistant manager.
- During his employment, Hayes was allegedly led to believe he would remain employed as long as he performed his job adequately.
- Hayes suspected his supervisor was embezzling funds from the restaurant.
- Hayes reported and attempted to investigate the suspected theft and embezzlement.
- Subsequently, Hayes was terminated from his employment by the same supervisor he suspected of embezzlement.
Procedural Posture:
- John M. Hayes filed a lawsuit against his former employer, Eateries, Inc. (d/b/a Garfield’s), in an Oklahoma trial court, alleging breach of contract and wrongful discharge.
- Eateries, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
- The trial court granted the motion to dismiss.
- Hayes, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the Oklahoma Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The Supreme Court of Oklahoma granted Hayes's petition for a writ of certiorari to review the case.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an at-will employee state a valid claim for wrongful termination under either an implied contract or public policy tort theory when he is fired after investigating and reporting a co-worker's embezzlement against the employer, based on vague oral assurances of job security?
Opinions:
Majority - Lavender, J.
No. An at-will employee does not state a valid claim under these circumstances. For the breach of contract claim, vague oral assurances that employment will continue so long as the employee performs satisfactorily are not definite promises sufficient to create an implied contract. Such statements are 'general platitudes' that do not place substantive restrictions on the employer's right to terminate at will. For the public policy tort claim, reporting a co-worker's embezzlement against the employer involves the employer's private and proprietary interests, not a clear and compelling public policy. The court distinguished this from whistleblowing that protects public health or safety or an employee's refusal to commit a crime. Since the employer is the direct victim of the embezzlement, it is the employer's business decision whether to report it, and terminating an employee for reporting it does not violate a clear mandate of public policy.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the exceptions to the employment-at-will doctrine in Oklahoma. It establishes a high bar for employees claiming an implied contract based on oral assurances, requiring definite and specific promises that substantively limit the employer's termination rights. More critically, the ruling creates a clear distinction for the public policy tort, separating whistleblowing that serves a direct public interest (e.g., public safety) from reporting internal misconduct that primarily harms the employer's private interests. This precedent makes it more difficult for employees to bring wrongful discharge claims when they are terminated for reporting internal crimes where the company is the victim.
Unlock the full brief for Hayes v. Eateries, Inc.