Ms. Granbury's Employment Discharge Case

MEMORANDUM

Name:
Institution:

MEMORANDUM

From:
To:
Date:
Re: Kathrine Granbury
Questions Presented
Was the relationship between Ms. Granbury and her employer changed by the circumstances?
1. Can the Ms. Granbury claim illegal discharge from her employment through a citation of breach of an implied contract?
2. Can Ms. Granbury claim unfair (discriminatory) treatment of her discharge case by the company’s personnel committee?
Brief Answers
The relationship between Ms. Granbury and her employer changed following the interpretation of handbook.
1. Ms. Granbury can claim illegal discharge through citing breach of an implied contract. The handbook lists a number of grounds on which an employees’ employment may be terminated. It
Granbury’s employment is an at-will employment. From the case facts, she worked under conditions spelt out in an employee handbook. While the state of Texas has no implied contract exceptions for at-will employment agreements, the legal principle is that all employers should include a disclaimer in the employment letters and the handbooks guiding the employees. This disclaimer was not included, making the handbook a binding implied contract. In citing Aiello vs United Air Lines, Inc., 818 F.2d 1196 (1987), the court referenced another case, concluding that a handbook without terms that constitute a cause for termination of contract do not make up an implied contract. However, in Ms. Granbury’s case, the terms constituting a cause for termination of employment are clearly outlined. Moreover, these terms are applied on every other employee at the company and therefore influence a change in the nature of relationship between Ms. Granbury and her employer.
In Aiello vs United Air Lines, Inc ., the court of appeal, following the previous ruling in favor of the Aiello (the plaintiff), held that the appellee had been wrongly discharged. This was inconsideration of the fact that another employee, under similar circumstances, had not been discharged. In Ms. Granbury’s case, the fact that the personnel committee had granted other employees a chance for review meant a specific way of treatment that should have been the same
In the event that the case is filed, the defense may argue that the courts in Texas have always held that employment for an unspecified period may be ended at will. This argument is backed in the dissenting opinion in Aiello vs United Air Lines, Inc., 818 F.2d 1196 (1987) In this case, the judge quotes East line & RRR Co. Vs Scott and 72 Tex. 70,75 10, S.W. 99, 102 (1888). Yet another case cited in the Aiello vs United Air Lines, Inc., 818 F.2d 1196 (1987) case, is the Joachim v. A& T Information Sys., where the court ruled against the plaintiff following claims of discriminatory dismissal. The court in this case held that despite the provision that the company shall not terminate employment based on sexual preferences, the implied contract was not binding according to Texas law. However, Texas law provides that a disclaimer must be included in the handbook to ensure clarity regarding the nature of employment. This position, therefore, may be