Rex A. Workman v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 31548, 17 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 134, 234 F.3d 998 (2000)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under Indiana law, an employee handbook does not create a binding employment contract or support a claim of promissory estoppel if it contains a clear and forthright disclaimer stating that the handbook is not a contract and conveys no rights.

Facts:

The plaintiff was employed by United Parcel Service (UPS).
UPS provided the plaintiff with an employee handbook that explained the company's employment policies.
The handbook contained language regarding the process and grounds for demotion.
Crucially, the handbook included a specific disclaimer stating: "this Policy Book is not a contract of employment and does not affect your rights as an employee of UPS."
UPS demoted the plaintiff.
The plaintiff claimed the demotion violated the promises made in the handbook regarding "just cause" protections.

Procedural Posture:

Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against UPS in state court alleging breach of contract and promissory estoppel.
Defendant (UPS) removed the case to the United States District Court based on diversity jurisdiction.
Plaintiff contested federal jurisdiction, arguing the amount in controversy did not exceed $75,000.
The District Court held an evidentiary hearing and determined that jurisdiction existed.
The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendant.
Plaintiff appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

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 legally binding promise preventing demotion without cause when that handbook contains an explicit disclaimer stating it is not a contract of employment?

Opinions:

Majority - Judge Richard Posner

No, an employee handbook does not create a binding contract when it contains a clear disclaimer. The court reasoned that while some states allow handbooks to create contracts, Indiana law (which governed this dispute) likely follows the rule that a clear and forthright disclaimer serves as a complete defense to a breach of contract claim. The court noted that because employers are not legally required to provide handbooks at all, they should not be penalized for doing so by having non-binding policy statements transformed into legal obligations. Furthermore, the court held that the disclaimer also defeats a claim for promissory estoppel, as an employee cannot reasonably rely on a promise that is expressly disclaimed as non-binding.

Analysis:

This decision reinforces the strength of the at-will employment doctrine in the Seventh Circuit and under Indiana law. By upholding the validity of "clear and forthright" disclaimers, the court protects employers from unintentional contract liability arising from policy manuals. The ruling suggests a policy preference for encouraging employers to share information with employees without fear of litigation; the court explicitly notes that ruling otherwise would simply cause employers to stop issuing handbooks entirely. It also clarifies that promissory estoppel cannot be used as a "backdoor" to enforce a contract that has been validly disclaimed.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Rex A. Workman v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (2000)

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