Abney v. Baptist Medical Centers

15 Citing cases

  1. Davis v. City of Montevallo

    380 So. 3d 382 (Ala. 2023)   Cited 6 times
    Explaining that a party’s " ‘ability to later modify [contract] provisions does not justify a disregard of currently valid provisions’ " (quoting Ex parte Graham, 702 So. 2d 1215, 1219 (Ala. 1997))

    Nor can a handbook that expressly disclaims the existence of a contract "reasonably be construed to constitute a unilateral contract of employment, as a matter of law." Abney v. Baptist Med. Ctrs., 597 So. 2d 682, 683 (Ala. 1992). Indeed, this Court has repeatedly held that no contract exists when the employee handbook contains an unambiguous dis- claimer of a contract, In McCluskey v. Unicare Health Facility, Inc., 484 So. 2d 398 (Ala. 1986), our Court held that an offer did not exist when the employees signed an acknowledgment stating that " ‘[t]his Handbook and the policies contained herein do not in any way constitute, and should not be construed as a contract of employment between the employer and the employee, or a promise of employment.’

  2. Ex Parte Amoco Fabrics and Fiber Co.

    729 So. 2d 336 (Ala. 1998)   Cited 33 times
    Concluding that employment policy constituted a contract and that "such a contract should be enforced"

    Amoco, however, argues that it had placed in its manuals a disclaimer stating that no part of its manuals constituted a binding contract, and it argues that, because of this disclaimer, the layoff policy could not be used to support a finding of a contract. This Court generally gives effect to disclaimers such as this one. See, e.g., Abney v. Baptist Medical Centers, 597 So.2d 682 (Ala. 1994). However, it is undisputed that Amoco's disclaimer had no effect until October 1, 1990; this was several years after the time at which the evidence indicates that Amoco had communicated the layoff policy to Stokes and Williams and that they had accepted the policy by continuing their employment.

  3. Ex Parte Graham

    702 So. 2d 1215 (Ala. 1997)   Cited 154 times
    Holding that the county agency's personnel manual, that established a grievance process was sufficient to constitute a unilateral contract of employment; failure to follow the manual's procedures gave employee right to assert a breach-of-contract claim

    Id. The handbook did not provide for definite performance review, nor did it provide an employee grievance procedure. The employee handbooks considered in the cases of Abney v. Baptist Medical Centers, 597 So.2d 682 (Ala. 1992); Clark v. America's First Credit Union, 585 So.2d 1367 (Ala. 1991); Hanson v. New Technology, Inc., 594 So.2d 96 (Ala. 1992); and Dykes v. Lane Trucking, Inc., 652 So.2d 248 (Ala. 1994), contained express disclaimers stating that "[a]ll employment is terminable with or without cause at the will of either the employee or the employer," Abney, 597 So.2d at 682; that "this manual should not be construed to be a binding contract," Clark, 585 So.2d at 1369; that "[s]tatements in this document . . . in no way imply that a contract exists," Hanson, 594 So.2d at 99; and that "[t]he policies described in this employee handbook are not conditions of employment and the language is not intended to create a contract between [the company] and its employees," and that "our employment 'at will' policy will remain in effect during the entire course of your employment," Dykes, 652 So.2d at 249. An additional fact in Abney was that, upon receipt of the employee handbook, employees of the Baptist Medica

  4. Caldwell v. Kimberly-Clark U.S.

    Civil Action 24-0161-WS-M (S.D. Ala. Sep. 19, 2024)

    (Id. at 2). See generally Abney v. Baptist Medical Centers, 597 So.2d 682, 683 (Ala. 1992) (discussing how provisions in an employee handbook may become binding promises). Similarly, the amended complaint mentions, seemingly in passing, a mysterious “contract book” that apparently had some relevance to her January pay grievance, (Doc. 14, ¶ 39), but without alleging that it constitutes an employment contract with the plaintiff.

  5. Frederickson v. Medrio Inc.

    3:23-cv-00373-MHH (N.D. Ala. Sep. 9, 2024)

    ” Davis, 380 So.3d at 388-89; see also McCluskey v. Unicare Health Facility, Inc., 484 So.2d 398, 400 (Ala. 1986) (holding that provisions of employee handbook were not enforceable against employer where the handbook acknowledgment form stated ‘“[t]his Handbook and the policies contained herein do not in any way constitute, and should not be construed as a contract of employment between the employer and the employee, or a promise of employment'”) (quoting employee handbook); Abney v. Baptist Med. Ctrs., 597 So.2d 682, 683 (Ala. 1992) (finding that handbook did not create an employment contract where the handbook “contained a statement disclaiming an employment contract and restating that employment was ‘at will'” and contained an acknowledgment form with a disclaimer).

  6. Hardy v. City of Selma

    CIVIL ACT. 2:21-cv-522-TFM-B (S.D. Ala. Aug. 23, 2024)

    Nor can a handbook that expressly disclaims the existence of a contract “reasonably be construed to constitute a unilateral contract of employment, as a matter of law.” Abney v. Baptist Med. Ctrs., 597 So.2d 682, 683 (Ala. 1992).

  7. Stewart v. Inland Bldg. Sys.

    Civil Action 5:21-cv-1665-LCB (N.D. Ala. May. 8, 2023)

    Alabama law is clear that where an employee handbook expressly states that the policies do not create a contract and the employment is at-will, there is no contract that will support a claim for termination against company policy. See, e.g.,Abney v. Baptist Med.Ctrs., 597 So.2d 682, 683 (Ala. 1992), citing Hanson v. New Tech., Inc., 594 So.2d 96 (Ala.1992).

  8. Vanlandingham v. City of Abbeville

    455 F. Supp. 3d 1259 (M.D. Ala. 2020)   Cited 2 times
    Finding that police chief plausibly alleged that he was speaking as a citizen on a matter of public concern because, although he learned of the subject matter of the speech in the course of his employment, he made the statement privately and not pursuant to his job responsibilities

    Alabama courts have held that employers are entitled to prevail as a matter of law on contract claims founded upon employee handbooks that expressly disclaim an intention to make a contract or reserve to the employer the right to change policies unilaterally. SeeAbney v. Baptist Med. Centers , 597 So. 2d 682, 683 (Ala. 1992) ; see alsoButler v. Cleburne Cty. Comm'n , 2012 WL 2357740, at *20 (N.D. Ala. 2012) (collecting state and federal cases), report and recommendation adopted , 2012 WL 2357741 (N.D. Ala. 2012). The handbook in question in this case has such a disclaimer.

  9. Vanlandingham v. City of Abbeville

    Civil Act. No. 1:19cv500-ECM (wo) (M.D. Ala. Apr. 20, 2020)

    Alabama courts have held that employers are entitled to prevail as a matter of law on contract claims founded upon employee handbooks that expressly disclaim an intention to make a contract or reserve to the employer the right to change policies unilaterally. See Abney v. Baptist Med. Centers, 597 So. 2d 682, 683 (Ala. 1992); see also Butler v. Cleburne Cty. Comm'n, 2012 WL 2357740, at *20 (N.D. Ala. 2012) (collecting state and federal cases), report and recommendation adopted, 2012 WL 2357741 (N.D. Ala. 2012). The handbook in question in this case has such a disclaimer.

  10. Black v. Reynolds

    CIVIL ACTION 14-0442-WS-N (S.D. Ala. Jan. 29, 2016)   Cited 1 times

    This language as well dispels any notion that the defendants offered to enter a contract ensuring that the plaintiff would never be bullied or harassed. See Abney v. Baptist Medical Centers, 597 So. 2d 682, 683 (Ala. 1992) (as a matter of law, no employment contract was created when the handbook disclaimed such a contract and the plaintiff signed an acknowledgment form likewise disclaiming such a contract). The plaintiff recognizes that her situation falls within the Abney paradigm. (Doc. 101 at 3).