Howard v. WOLFE BROADCASTING CORP.
611 So. 2d 307, 1992 WL 341847 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In Alabama, general statements of non-discrimination policy and federal regulations requiring equal opportunity do not create an implied employment contract or a public policy exception to the employment-at-will doctrine. The creation of exceptions to this doctrine is a legislative function, not a judicial one.
Facts:
- In late 1987, Patricia Williams Howard inquired about employment with Wolff Broadcasting Corporation and was subsequently hired as a disc jockey and advertising salesperson.
- Howard had no prior experience in the radio business and did not have a written contract of employment for a definite term.
- During the hiring process, Howard observed a sign in the station's lobby stating that Wolff would not discriminate against 'females, blacks, or any others.'
- On January 26, 1988, station manager Keith Holcombe terminated Howard's employment.
- Holcombe informed Howard that she was being fired because Karen Wolff, the wife of the station's owner, did not want any females on the air.
- That same night, Howard typed a letter stating this reason for her termination, which she claims Holcombe signed.
Procedural Posture:
- Patricia Williams Howard sued Wolff Broadcasting Corporation in a state trial court, alleging breach of contract and fraud.
- After discovery, Wolff filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing Howard had failed to establish a claim as a matter of law.
- The trial court granted Wolff's motion and entered a summary judgment in its favor.
- Howard (appellant) appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment against her contract and fraud claims to the Supreme Court of Alabama.
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 firing an at-will employee solely because of her gender create a cause of action for breach of an implied contract or wrongful discharge in violation of public policy under Alabama law?
Opinions:
Majority - Maddox, J.
No. Firing an at-will employee solely due to her gender does not support a claim for breach of contract or wrongful discharge under a public policy exception in Alabama. For the breach of contract claim, the court held that Howard's employment was terminable at will because she had no contract for a definite duration. The FCC's non-discrimination regulations and the non-discrimination sign in the lobby were not specific enough to constitute an offer of permanent employment that would alter the at-will relationship under the principles of Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. v. Campbell. For the fraud claim, Howard failed to produce substantial evidence that Wolff had a present intent to deceive when it posted the sign; failure to perform on a future promise is not, by itself, evidence of fraudulent intent at the time the promise was made. Finally, the court explicitly declined to create a public policy exception to the at-will doctrine, reasoning that creating such exceptions is the province of the legislature, not the judiciary. The court noted that the legislature has previously created statutory exceptions after the court refused to do so, demonstrating the proper separation of powers.
Analysis:
This case strongly reaffirms Alabama's strict adherence to the traditional employment-at-will doctrine. The court's decision to defer to the legislature distinguishes Alabama from a growing number of states that have judicially created public policy exceptions to the doctrine, particularly for firings that violate clear public policy mandates like non-discrimination. This ruling solidifies that, in Alabama, an employee's remedies for wrongful discharge are limited to explicit statutory provisions or the terms of a specific employment contract for a definite duration. It signals to potential litigants that arguments based on implied contracts from general policies or broad public policy principles are unlikely to succeed in Alabama courts.
