Progress Printing Co., Inc. v. Nichols

Supreme Court of Virginia
244 Va. 337, 2 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 296, 421 S.E.2d 428 (1992)

ELI5:

Sections

Rule of Law:

In Virginia, the presumption of at-will employment can be rebutted by sufficient evidence of a definite term, but a subsequently executed acknowledgment form explicitly stating employment is 'at will' supersedes prior employee handbook provisions that might otherwise suggest termination only for cause.

Facts:

Nichols was hired by Progress Printing as a pressman and received an Employee Handbook stating that the company would not discharge employees without 'just cause' and a written warning.
Approximately two weeks after being hired, Nichols and the personnel director signed a separate form explicitly stating that the employment relationship was 'at will and may be terminated by either party at any time.'
Nichols worked for the company for two years, during which time he suffered from hypertension.
Nichols became upset regarding a recurring defect in a print job and refused to complete an assignment as directed by his supervisor.
The following day, Progress Printing terminated Nichols's employment without providing the written warning mentioned in the Handbook.

Procedural Posture:

Nichols filed a bill of complaint in the trial court alleging breach of contract and violation of the Virginians with Disabilities Act.
The trial court held an ore tenus hearing.
The trial court ruled that Progress Printing did not violate the Disabilities Act.
The trial court ruled that Progress Printing did breach the employment contract and awarded Nichols $9,500 in damages.
Progress Printing appealed the breach of contract judgment to the Supreme Court of Virginia.
Nichols assigned cross-error appealing the trial court's finding regarding the Disabilities Act.

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 a signed acknowledgment form explicitly stating that employment is 'at will' supersede a previously issued employee handbook that contained provisions restricting termination to 'just cause'?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Lacy

Yes, the signed acknowledgment form stating the employment was at-will superseded any contrary provisions in the employee handbook. The Court rejected the lower court's finding that the acknowledgment form merely incorporated the handbook or applied only to a probationary period. Instead, the Court found that the 'at will' language in the signed form was clear, unconditional, and in direct conflict with the 'just cause' language of the handbook. Because the form was executed 13 days after Nichols began work, it represented a separate understanding between the parties. Even assuming the handbook constituted an initial contract, the subsequent form memorialized a new agreement: the employer offered at-will employment, and Nichols accepted by continuing to work. Consequently, the relationship was at-will, and the employer did not breach the contract by firing Nichols without a written warning. regarding the disability claim, the Court held that the statute is only violated if the discharge is based solely on the disability, which was not the case here as Nichols demonstrated a 'bad attitude.'

Analysis:

This decision reinforces the strength of the employment-at-will doctrine in Virginia. It clarifies that employers can effectively negate potential contractual obligations found in employee handbooks (such as 'just cause' termination requirements) by having employees sign a specific acknowledgment of at-will status. The ruling establishes that later-signed specific agreements override earlier general policy documents. This creates a clear roadmap for employers to protect themselves from wrongful termination suits based on handbook implied contracts: simply ensure the employee signs a document explicitly confirming at-will status. For employees, it signals that signing such a form likely waives any job security protections implied by other company policies.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Progress Printing Co., Inc. v. Nichols (1992)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"