 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Andrus v. State8/9/2005
After checks of Scott Andrus' employment references proved unsatisfactory, the City of Olympia revoked an oral employment offer it had made to him for an at-will position. Andrus sued, claiming wrongful termination. The superior court granted the City's motion for summary judgment and Andrus appeals. We affirm and award the City attorney fees and costs for defending this frivolous appeal.
FACTS
While employed elsewhere, Andrus applied for a position as a building inspector for the City of Olympia. On July 13, 2000, Andrus received a call from Tom Hill, an engineering supervisor with the City who was partially responsible for hiring building inspectors. During the call, Hill stated, 'You're our number one choice and I'm offering you the job.' Clerk's Papers (CP) at 17. The two men did not discuss the starting date, salary, benefits, or job details. Andrus responded 'Great' and 'Yes' and then hung up the phone after asking Hill to fax him the details about starting pay, retirement benefits, and a potential labor union membership. CP at 17. Andrus expected to receive the fax the next day and expected that the fax would also contain a written job offer and request for acceptance.
Instead, he received a phone message from Hill withdrawing the job offer due to further reference checks. At the time Andrus received word that the City had withdrawn its offer, he had not changed his job status with his current employer in any manner.
Andrus sued the City and the Department of Transportation (DOT). Andrus claimed that the July 13 phone call was an employment contract that the City breached by withdrawing the job offer. Andrus also alleged that DOT was liable for defamation for providing a bad employment reference to the City. The superior court granted the City and DOT's motion for summary judgment and this appeal followed.
ANALYSIS
Wrongful Breach of an At-Will Employment Contract
On appeal, Andrus assigns error only to the superior court's order granting the City summary judgment. He argues that his July 13 phone call with Hill formed an employment contract which was wrongfully breached when Hill revoked the offer the following day. Andrus' claim is frivolous.
An enforceable contract requires, among other things, an offer with reasonably certain terms. Restatement (Second) of Contracts sec. 33 (1979) ('The fact that one or more terms of a proposed bargain are left open or uncertain may show that a manifestation of intention is not intended to be understood as an offer or as an acceptance.'). Hill's 'job offer' contained no starting date, salary, or benefit information. Moreover, it was to be followed by a written offer and request for acceptance. Under these facts, the July 13 phone conversation did not form an employment contract.
Moreover, even if a contract had been formed, there was no actionable breach because Andrus admitted that the building inspector job was an at-will position. An employer can generally discharge an at-will employee without cause and without fear of liability. See Thompson v. St. Regis Paper Co., 102 Wn.2d 219, 226, 685 P.2d 1081 (1984). The general rule will not apply only if the parties have contractually modified the at-will employment relationship or if the firing contravenes public policy or a legislative enactment. Ford v. Trendwest Resorts, Inc., 146 Wn.2d 146, 152-54, 43 P.3d 1223 (2002); Gardner v. Loomis Armored Inc., 128 Wn.2d 931, 913 P.2d 377 (1996) (discharge of armored truck driver who abandoned post to prevent murder violated public policy); see also chapter 49.60 RCW (Washington's Law Against Discrimination). The public policy exception is a narrow one
Page 1 2 Washington Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|