Summary
dismissing breach of contract claim based on employee handbook
Summary of this case from Turner v. Federal Express Corp.Opinion
Civil Action No. 02-1263 (GK)
September 5, 2002
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Upon consideration of Defendant's Partial Motion to Dismiss, the Opposition, and the Reply, the Court concludes that the Motion should be granted in part and denied in part for the following reasons.
1. Defendant argues that Plaintiff's fourth claim for breach of contract must be dismissed for failure to state a claim. "It is well-settled District of Columbia law that, in the absence of clearly expressed contrary intent . . . the parties have in mind merely the ordinary business contract for continuing employment, terminable at the will of either party." Minihan v. Am. Pharm. Ass'n., 812 F.2d 726, 727 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Willoughby v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 100 F.2d 9991 1001 (D.C. Cir. 1996). In short, there is a longstanding presumption in the District of Columbia that, unless a contrary contractual intent is clearly expressed, all employment is at-will. Sullivan v. Heritage Found., 399 A.2d 856, 860 (D.C. 1978)
In this case, there is no question that the understanding between the parties was clear. Defendant's employee handbook states: "this booklet . . . is not intended to be, nor is it a contract or guarantee of employment of working conditions." Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' have failed to state a claim for breach of contract.
2. Defendant argues that Plaintiffs' fifth claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress should be dismissed for failure to state a claim. In particular, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs have failed to allege, as a matter of law, facts which would fall within the requirements of Sere v. Group Hospitalization Inc., 442 A.2d 33 (D.C. 1982). That seminal case requires that, in order to state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, a plaintiff must show "(1) extreme and outrageous conduct on the part of the defendant which (2) intentionally or recklessly (3) causes the plaintiff severe emotional distress." Id. at 37.
This is an employment discharge case. The courts have long held that "mere discharge of an employee is not `conduct that goes beyond all possible bounds of decency and [is] regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.'" Elliot v. Health Care Corp., 629 A.2d 6, 9 (D.C. 1992). There are no facts alleged by Plaintiffs that could possibly fit within this standard. Moreover, Plaintiffs will have an opportunity to recover for emotional distress as part of their compensatory damages for discriminatory treatment based on race, ethnic origin, gender and age, if they prevail on these claims.
3. Defendant also argues that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for common law fraud and defamation. After considering the arguments of counsel presented in their briefs, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have in fact stated such claims and that the Motion to Dismiss these claims should be denied.