Orr v. Westminster Village North, Inc.
1997 WL 769409, 689 N.E.2d 712 (1997)
Rule of Law:
In Indiana, employment is presumed to be at-will, and an employee handbook does not create a unilateral contract requiring just cause for discharge if it contains express disclaimers stating it is not a contract and lacks mandatory language requiring progressive discipline.
Facts:
- Orr, Smith, and Robinson were employed by Westminster Village North, a retirement community.
- Upon hiring, the plaintiffs signed a statement acknowledging that the Employee Handbook was not a contract and was subject to change.
- The Handbook contained a disciplinary section stating that while warnings occur in 'most cases,' immediate dismissal could occur for major violations.
- A supervisor and firefighters discovered smoke and the odor of marijuana in an attic at the facility.
- The supervisor found Orr hiding in the attic and subsequently discovered all three plaintiffs on the roof of the building.
- The plaintiffs claimed they were cleaning gutters but possessed no safety equipment.
- Westminster terminated the plaintiffs immediately for being in an unauthorized area and endangering safety, citing these as major violations.
- The plaintiffs claimed the termination was wrongful because Westminster failed to follow the progressive disciplinary procedures outlined in the Handbook.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs sued Westminster in the trial court for breach of contract and wrongful discharge.
- The trial court granted Westminster's motion for summary judgment.
- Plaintiffs appealed to the Indiana Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, finding a material issue of fact regarding the handbook.
- Westminster petitioned the Supreme Court of Indiana for transfer.
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 employee handbook create a binding unilateral contract that alters an at-will employment relationship when the handbook contains disclaimers denying contractual intent and permits immediate discharge for major violations?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Selby
No. The employee handbook did not create a binding contract that altered the plaintiffs' at-will employment status. Indiana maintains a strong presumption of at-will employment, meaning either party may terminate the relationship at any time for any reason. Exceptions are rare and generally require adequate independent consideration, which the plaintiffs did not provide. Even if the court were to accept that handbooks can form unilateral contracts (a standard used in Illinois under Duldulao), this specific Handbook fails the test. First, it lacks a clear promise of job security because the language regarding disciplinary warnings is permissive ('may') rather than mandatory, and it expressly allows for immediate discharge. Second, the Handbook contains a prominent disclaimer stating it is 'not a contract,' and the plaintiffs signed a separate statement acknowledging this disclaimer. Furthermore, the plaintiffs failed to exhaust the grievance procedures outlined in the Handbook before suing, which would bar their claim even if a contract existed. Therefore, the Handbook did not limit Westminster's right to discharge the plaintiffs without cause.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the strength of the employment-at-will doctrine in Indiana. By ruling that handbooks with disclaimers and permissive language do not create contractual rights, the Supreme Court of Indiana set a high bar for employees attempting to claim wrongful discharge based on internal policy manuals. The court declined to adopt a broad exception for handbooks, distinguishing Indiana from jurisdictions that might view such manuals as binding commitments. Practically, this allows employers to issue guidelines and disciplinary policies without fear of litigation, provided they include clear disclaimers and avoid mandatory language guaranteeing specific disciplinary steps. It places the burden on employees to prove that an actual promise of job security was made and relied upon.
