Yes, he might be able to sue. The court said the handbook isn't a real contract because Mobil put a disclaimer in it. But, Mobil still made promises about a fair process. It's like if someone says 'I promise I'll pay you to wash my car, but this isn't a contract,' and you wash it anyway. It would be unfair for them not to pay you. If McDonald relied on Mobil's promises of a fair process, it would be unjust to let Mobil break them. The case must go back to a lower court to decide if that's what happened.

Yes, but for a different reason. This judge agreed McDonald should get a chance to argue his case, but not because of the 'broken promise' theory. He said the real problem was that Mobil's 'not a contract' warning was buried in the text. It wasn't in bold, underlined, or in a separate box, so it wasn't obvious. Since the warning was basically hidden, the handbook becomes confusing, and a jury should decide what it actually means.

No. Mobil was perfectly clear. The handbook literally said 'this is not a contract.' The company chose not to make a contractual promise, and the court should respect that. Case closed.

No, and the majority is being unfair to businesses. This judge argued that the court had previously told companies how to avoid their handbooks being treated as contracts: just add a disclaimer. Mobil did exactly what the court told them to do. Now, the court is changing the rules and saying the disclaimer doesn't completely protect them. He said it was like the court was playing a 'cruel game of cat and mouse' with employers.

Yes, the handbook might still make promises Mobil has to keep. Even though Mobil said the handbook wasn't a contract, the way it's written might make workers think they have certain rights. If Mobil should have known workers would rely on what the handbook says, and if workers did rely on it in a way that would be unfair to ignore, then Mobil might have to follow what the handbook says. We need to send this case back to the lower court to figure out if that's what happened here.

No, Mobil made it very clear that the handbook wasn't a contract. We should respect that Mobil didn't want to make any promises in the handbook.

No, Mobil did what we told companies to do in earlier cases. If we now say they still have to keep promises from the handbook, it's like we're changing the rules on them. This will make things very confusing for companies.

Yes, but for different reasons. The part of the handbook that says it's not a contract isn't clear enough. It should be more obvious, like having workers sign it separately. Because it's not clear, and the rest of the handbook talks about worker rights, it's confusing. We need to send it back to the lower court to figure out what Mobil and the workers really meant.

Yes. While the express disclaimer prevents the handbook from forming a binding contract, its promises may still be enforceable under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The court held that the handbook was not a contract because Mobil's disclaimer demonstrated it had no intention to form one. However, the promises within the handbook regarding job security and specific disciplinary procedures could still be enforceable under promissory estoppel if the employee can prove the necessary elements. A promise is binding under this doctrine if the promisor should reasonably expect it to induce action, it does induce such action, and injustice can only be avoided by its enforcement. Whether McDonald's resignation was forced, whether Mobil should have expected his reliance on the handbook's procedures, and whether that reliance was reasonable are genuine issues of material fact that make summary judgment inappropriate.

Yes, because the handbook creates an ambiguous contract due to an ineffective disclaimer, which presents a question of fact for a jury. This opinion concurs only in the result (reversing summary judgment) but disagrees with the majority's reliance on promissory estoppel. The dispositive issue is that the handbook's disclaimer was not legally 'conspicuous' because it was not capitalized, bordered, or otherwise set off from the surrounding text. An inconspicuous disclaimer is ineffective as a matter of law. Because the disclaimer fails, the handbook's promises of job security and procedural fairness conflict with the at-will presumption, creating an ambiguous contract whose meaning must be determined by a fact-finder.

No. The handbook does not create enforceable promises because the clear disclaimer prevents the formation of any contractual obligations. Mobil did everything it could to state clearly that it was not forming an employment contract. The court should respect the parties' freedom to contract, which includes the freedom not to contract.

No. The handbook does not create enforceable promises, and applying promissory estoppel in this context contradicts the court's prior guidance to employers. The majority's holding creates a distinction without a difference, as enforcing handbook promises via promissory estoppel has the same effect as finding a contract. This decision unfairly penalizes an employer who followed the court's previous instructions on how to maintain at-will employment by using an express disclaimer, creating a 'cruel and peculiar game of cat and mouse' for Wyoming businesses.

Yes, the handbook may create enforceable promises despite the disclaimer. While the disclaimer shows Mobil did not intend to form a contract, the handbook's language could still be understood to convey promises. Even without a contractual obligation, some promises can be enforceable under the doctrine of promissory estoppel if: (1) the employer should reasonably expect the employee to consider the representation as a commitment; (2) the employee reasonably relied on the representation to their detriment; and (3) injustice can only be avoided by enforcing the representation. These are factual issues that must be determined by a jury. Because genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether McDonald's resignation was forced and whether he reasonably relied on the handbook's procedures, summary judgment was improper. The case is reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

No. Mobil did everything it could through its disclaimer to ensure there was not an employment contract. Parties are free to contract or not as they choose, and we should respect Mobil's clear choice not to enter into a contract with its employees.

No. Mobil followed the court's prior guidance by obtaining a signed at-will statement and including a clear disclaimer in the handbook. Allowing promissory estoppel claims despite these measures effectively negates the employer's efforts to maintain at-will employment. This creates uncertainty for employers and contradicts our previous rulings. The summary judgment should be affirmed.

Yes, but I concur only in the result and disagree with applying promissory estoppel. The disclaimer was not sufficiently conspicuous as a matter of law, as it was not set apart or emphasized in any way. A truly conspicuous disclaimer requires more prominent presentation, such as having the employee sign it separately. Because the ineffective disclaimer renders the handbook ambiguous when considered alongside its detailed procedures, there are issues of material fact regarding the parties' intent. Summary judgment was therefore improper, but on different grounds than the majority's reasoning.

McDonald v. Mobil Coal Producing, Inc.

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot