Case Study:
Melott v. ACC Operations, Inc. No. 2:05-CV-063, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46328 (S.D. Ohio, 2006)
Melott had made arrangements to transfer to the ACC Operations’ Florida facility, allegedly to escape an abusive relationship in Ohio. Although a start date was set for the Florida position, Melott unilaterally decided to leave Ohio one month earlier than anticipated. ACC’s Ohio facility fired Melott because of her continued absences from work during that month, and the Florida facility notified her that she was therefore ineligible for the other position because she had been fired. The court rejected Melott’s implied contract claim because the promise of the employee’s managers to help the employee in “any way” did not create an implied contract that altered her status as an at-will employee. The court therefore granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment.
Breach of Contract
Melott asserts that ACC breached its contractual obligations by wrongfully terminating her employment with the company. It is undisputed that there is no express written contract that alters Melott’s status as an at-will employee. The question is whether the parties intended and were bound by an implied contract that altered the terms of discharge. To prevail on a breach of contract claim under Ohio law, Melott must show: (1) the existence of a binding contract, (2) performance by Melott, (3) breach by ACC, and (4) damage to Melott as a result of ACC’s breach. To establish the existence of an implied contract, an atwill employee must prove each element necessary to form a contract. A plaintiff must show mutual assent (i.e., offer and acceptance) and consideration. The parties must have a meeting of the minds to limit the terms of discharge, and the contract must be definite as to its essential terms. A binding agreement can be implied by the facts and circumstances surrounding the employment relationship, including, in some situations, oral representations made by supervisory personnel. However, courts have found repeatedly that vague statements promising job security are insufficient to overcome the presumption of at-will employment. In this case, Melott bases her breach of implied contract claim on the ACC managers’ assurance that they would help her to transfer to West Palm Beach in “any way” they could. Melott argues that this offer of assistance created an implied contract that altered her status as an at-will employee and guaranteed her employment until she began working at the facility in West Palm Beach. ACC contends summary judgment is appropriate because there is no genuine issue regarding the existence of a binding contract. Based on the evidence presented, the Court agrees that no reasonable jury could find a binding contract existed that limited the conditions under which Melott could be discharged. The managers’ vague offer to assist Melott’s transfer to West Palm Beach cannot be construed as an offer to enter into a binding contract to limit the terms of her discharge. The parties did not agree that ACC would continue to employ Melott for any particular length of time. There is no evidence that they agreed that Melott’s job at the Chillicothe Call Center would remain secure, regardless of her attendance, until she started working in West Palm Beach. Melott contends that it was her understanding that her absences during the transition were approved. Melott did not believe she would be subject to discharge for her continued absences even after she was informed that she had exhausted her paid leave. However, regardless of Melott’s subjective belief that the managers’ vague offer to assist the transfer altered her status as an at-will employee and was broad enough to protect her from discharge for excessive absences, it is clear from the facts of this case that there was no meeting of the minds concerning the subject. It is undisputed that Melott did not seek the managers’ approval prior to leaving her position at the Chillicothe Call Center earlier than anticipated, and the subject of unexcused absences was never discussed. Moreover, the fact that the ACC facility in West Palm Beach set a start date for Melott and agreed to an hourly wage does not alter the general presumption that this continued to be an at-will employment relationship. Finally, there is no evidence that the managers’ assurance that they would assist Melott’s transfer was supported by any consideration on Melott’s part. In short, the evidence is insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether there was a binding contract that altered Melott’s status as an at-will employee. Accordingly, ACC is entitled to summary judgment on Melott’s claim of breach of contract.
Q1. Why did Melott believe that she had an implied contract with ACC? What would she have had to show in order to prove that the implied contract existed?
Q2. If Melott had not been fired from ACC’s Ohio facility, would her employment at the Florida facility have been guaranteed? Why or why not?
Q3. What can companies do to avoid breach of implied contract cases?
Your answer must be typed, double-spaced, Times New Roman font (size 12), one-inch margins on all sides, APA format.