Russell v. Board of County Commissioners
69 O.B.A.J. 1886, 952 P.2d 492, 1997 OK 80 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employee handbook may create an implied contract or a basis for promissory estoppel regarding benefits like overtime pay, even with a disclaimer, if the handbook's promises are definite and the employer's conduct is inconsistent with the disclaimer. The existence of such conditions creates a material issue of fact, making summary judgment for the employer improper.
Facts:
- The Board of County Commissioners of Carter County established and distributed a personnel policy handbook to its employees.
- The handbook contained a disclaimer on the front stating, 'THESE POLICIES ARE NOT TO BE CONSIDERED AN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT WITH ANY EMPLOYEE'.
- The handbook's policies provided that 'law enforcement personnel' were entitled to overtime pay.
- The handbook did not define which specific roles were considered 'law enforcement personnel' or which were 'exempt' from overtime.
- Ten deputy sheriffs of Carter County performed work for which they sought overtime compensation.
- The County paid other personnel in the sheriff's office, such as jail staff, for overtime work in accordance with the handbook.
- The Board of County Commissioners refused to provide overtime compensation to the ten deputy sheriffs.
Procedural Posture:
- Ten deputy sheriffs (plaintiffs) filed a breach-of-contract action against the Board of County Commissioners (defendant) in an Oklahoma trial court.
- Both parties moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Board of County Commissioners.
- The deputy sheriffs (appellants) appealed the decision to the Court of Civil Appeals (COCA).
- The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, primarily on grounds of the Fair Labor Standards Act and equal protection, which were not raised by the parties.
- The Board of County Commissioners (petitioner) petitioned the Supreme Court of Oklahoma for a writ of certiorari.
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 county employee handbook create a triable issue of fact regarding an implied contract for overtime pay when it contains both a disclaimer and specific, but potentially ambiguous, promises about such pay that are inconsistently applied?
Opinions:
Majority - Opala, Justice
Yes, a county employee handbook creates a triable issue of fact regarding an implied contract for overtime pay under these circumstances. An employee handbook may form an implied contract if it contains definite promises, and a disclaimer can be negated by inconsistent employer conduct. Here, the handbook's promise of overtime to 'law enforcement personnel' is ambiguous, and the County's practice of paying some sheriff's employees overtime but not the deputies creates a factual dispute as to whether the disclaimer was effective. The court reasoned that both the implied contract claim and a promissory estoppel claim hinge on disputed material facts, such as the meaning of the handbook's terms and the effect of the County's inconsistent practices. Therefore, these are questions for a trier of fact, and the trial court's entry of summary judgment was in error.
Dissenting - Simms, Justice
No, a triable issue of fact does not exist for the court to review. The dissent argues that the Court of Civil Appeals (COCA) had already affirmed the trial court's finding that the handbook did not create a contractual right. The deputies did not seek certiorari review on that specific adverse ruling. The only issue properly before the Supreme Court was the COCA's error in raising a Fair Labor Standards Act claim on its own initiative. Since the deputies failed to challenge the lower court's contract-based ruling, the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the county should have been affirmed, and the majority should not have reviewed the contractual claims.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies that a disclaimer in an employee handbook is not an absolute defense against breach of contract claims in Oklahoma. It establishes that an employer's subsequent conduct and the specificity of promises within the manual can create a triable issue of fact regarding the disclaimer's validity. This ruling makes it more difficult for employers to dismiss such lawsuits at the summary judgment stage, thereby strengthening the ability of at-will employees to enforce promises of accrued benefits found in personnel policies. The case underscores that the legal effect of a handbook often depends on a fact-intensive inquiry into the parties' representations and practices.
