 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hessenthaler v. Tri-County Sister Help7/18/2005
epted the notes and did not terminate Hessenthaler.
In February 1996, while Hessenthaler was on leave, Harrell sent Hessenthaler a new employee handbook. Hessenthaler testified that she never read the handbook because she was sick at the time. After some communication by mail, however, Hessenthaler and Harrell finally met at the Shelter on May 8. During the meeting, Harrell proceeded to read the employee manual aloud to Hessenthaler. Hessenthaler admitted that the handbook was read to her "cover to cover, page by page, word for word."
The manual contained a disclaimer in bold, all-capitalized letters, on the first page, which provided as follows:
THE LANGUAGE USED IN THESE PERSONNEL POLICIES IS NOT INTENDED TO CREATE, NOR SHOULD IT BE INTERPRETED TO CREATE A LEGAL CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT BETWEEN [THE SHELTER] AND ANY OR ALL OF ITS EMPLOYEES. THIS DISCLAIMER TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER ANY STATEMENT IN THESE POLICIES.
Hessenthaler testified that she did not recall Harrell reading the disclaimer language.
The handbook also contained a nondiscrimination provision, which provided:
[The Shelter] is an equal opportunity employer. All decisions, including hiring, training, and promotion, are made without regard to race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, handicap, sexual preference, or any other protected status.
After the handbook was read aloud, Hessenthaler was offered the position as Shelter Manager, which included eleven more requirements than the job offered earlier. Hessenthaler testified that she was told that she needed to get a college degree, and that she would also have to assume the responsibilities of volunteer coordinator. Hessenthaler testified she felt as though it would take eight people to do all of that work.
Hessenthaler left the meeting, telling Harrell that, due to all of the job requirements, she would have to think about whether she would accept the position. Hessenthaler did not return to work by May 13 (her deadline for responding to Harrell's latest job offer) and later discovered that she had been fired.
Hessenthaler brought a breach-of-contract action against the Shelter alleging she was constructively discharged in violation of the nondiscrimination provision in the Shelter's employee handbook. The jury awarded her $25,000 in damages. The Shelter's motions for a directed verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict were denied. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the employee handbook did not constitute a contract, and therefore the trial court erred in denying the Shelter's motions. Hessenthaler v. Tri-County Sister Help, Inc., Op. No. 2001-UP-325 (S.C. Ct. App. filed June 19, 2001).
After granting certiorari, we reversed, holding that the question of whether the handbook created an enforceable contract was properly submitted to the jury. Hessenthaler v. Tri-County Sister Help, Inc., Op. No. 25650 (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed May 12, 2003) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 18 at 50). Rehearing was granted, and following oral argument, we withdrew the initial opinion and substituted it with a new opinion in which we affirmed the court of appeals' decision in result. Hessenthaler v. Tri-County Sister Help, Inc., Op. No. 25650 (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed Oct. 18, 2004) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 40 at 14).
After granting rehearing for a second time, we now consider the following issue for review:
Did the court of appeals err in holding that the employee handbook did not constitute a contract?
Law/Analysis
Standard of Review
When ruling on motions for directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding the
Page 1 2 3 4 5 South Carolina Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|