Montgomery County Hospital District v. Brown
965 S.W.2d 501, 41 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 537, 13 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1539 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
General oral assurances of job security, such as promises that an employee will not be terminated as long as their work is satisfactory or only for 'good cause,' are too indefinite to alter the at-will employment relationship. To modify an employee's at-will status, an employer's statement must be clear and unequivocal, indicating a definite intent to be bound not to terminate the employee except under clearly specified circumstances.
Facts:
- Valarie Brown accepted a position as a laboratory systems manager with the Montgomery County Hospital District.
- Accepting the job required Brown to relocate from Houston to the Conroe area.
- At the time of her hiring and during her employment, a hospital administrator orally assured Brown that she could keep her job as long as she was performing it well.
- The administrator also told Brown that she would not be fired unless there was a 'good reason or good cause' to do so.
- After ten years of employment, the District terminated Brown's employment.
- Brown contended that she was terminated without good cause.
Procedural Posture:
- Valarie Brown sued the Montgomery County Hospital District and its executives in a state district court (trial court) for, among other things, breach of an oral employment contract.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the District.
- Brown (as appellant) appealed to the Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment in part but reversed it as to the oral contract claim, holding that a fact issue existed, and remanded the case for trial.
- The District (as petitioner) appealed to the Supreme Court of Texas, which granted a writ of error.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do an employer's general oral assurances that an employee will not be fired without 'good cause' or as long as their work is satisfactory modify the default at-will employment relationship?
Opinions:
Majority - Hecht, J.
No. An employer's general oral statements do not modify an employee's at-will status. To alter the at-will presumption, an employer must unequivocally indicate a definite intent to be bound not to terminate the employee except under clearly specified circumstances. The statements made to Brown were too indefinite to constitute a binding contract. The long-standing rule in Texas is that employment is at-will, terminable for good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all. General comments about satisfactory work or termination for 'good reason' or 'good cause,' without a specific agreement on what those terms mean, do not manifest an intent to create a binding contract. An employee cannot construct a formal agreement out of indefinite comments, encouragements, or assurances. This aligns with the better-reasoned approach from other jurisdictions requiring oral statements of job security to be clear and unequivocal.
Concurring - Gonzalez, J.
No. While I agree with the judgment that the statements were too indefinite, the court should have held that the alleged oral agreement is unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds. A promise not to terminate employment except for good cause implies a long-term commitment that cannot be performed within one year. The 'tenor and understanding' between the parties, especially given Brown's relocation, was for job security lasting many years, likely until retirement. Following Schroeder v. Texas Iron Works, Inc., a term of working-life duration should be implied, bringing the agreement within the Statute of Frauds. The possibilities of termination within one year due to death, quitting, or breach do not constitute 'performance' of the contract and thus do not remove it from the Statute's requirements. Therefore, because the promise was not in writing, it is unenforceable.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reaffirms the presumption of at-will employment in Texas and makes it significantly more difficult for employees to claim that oral assurances have created a for-cause employment contract. By requiring that such promises be 'clear and unequivocal' with a 'definite intent to be bound,' the court provides employers with a high degree of protection against breach of contract claims arising from informal managerial statements. The ruling clarifies the standard for modifying at-will status, effectively shielding employers from liability for vague encouragements or general statements about job security, and forcing employees to secure explicit, written agreements for such protections.
