Grant v. Mount Vernon Mills, Inc., 634 S.E.2d 15, 20 (S.C. Ct. App. 2006). Language in an employee handbook may create an employment contract only when “(1) the handbook provisions and procedures in question apply to the employee; (2) the handbook sets out procedures binding on the employer; and (3) the handbook does not contain a conspicuous and appropriate disclaimer.” Bishop v. City of Columbia, 738 S.E.2d 255, 259 (S.C. Ct. App. 2013) (citations omitted).

(“The undersigned . . . agrees that the ‘first page' statutory requirement may at times be satisfied by having a compliant conspicuous disclaimer on the ‘first page after the cover page' of the handbook.”), R&R adopted by 2023 WL 2569438 (D.S.C. Mar. 20, 2023); Bishop v. City of Columbia, 738 S.E.2d 255, 260 (S.C. Ct. App. 2013) (finding an employee handbook was not a contract when there was a conspicuous disclaimer on the first page after the cover page). Accordingly, the Fund defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiff's breach of contract claim.

(“The undersigned . . . agrees that the ‘first page' statutory requirement may at times be satisfied by having a compliant conspicuous disclaimer on the ‘first page after the cover page' of the handbook.”), R&R adopted by 2023 WL 2569438 (D.S.C. Mar. 20, 2023); Bishop v. City of Columbia, 738 S.E.2d 255, 260 (S.C. Ct. App. 2013) (finding an employee handbook was not a contract when there was a conspicuous disclaimer on the first page after the cover page).

ECF No. 68-1 at 21. Language in an employee handbook or employment policy may create an employment contract only when “(1) the handbook provisions and procedures in question apply to the employee; (2) the handbook sets out procedures binding on the employer; and (3) the handbook does not contain a conspicuous and appropriate disclaimer.” Bishop v. City of Columbia, 738 S.E.2d 255, 259 (S.C. Ct. App. 2013) (citations omitted).

” Bishop v. City of Columbia, 738 S.E.2d 255, 259 (S.C. Ct. App. 2013) (citations omitted).

See Griesi v. Atlantic Gen. Hosp. Corp., 756 A.2d 548 (Md.Ct.App. 2000) (no promissory estoppel claim was asserted); Reimer v. Badger Wholesale Co., Inc., 433 N.W.2d 592 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998): (the court did not address the plaintiff's promissory estoppel claim, which was dismissed at summary judgment by the lower court); King v. PYA/Monarch, Inc., 317 S.C. 385, 453 S.E.2d 885 (1995) (no promissory estoppel claim was asserted). The retiree plaintiffs in Bishop v. City of Columbia, 401 S.C. 651, 738 S.E.2d 255 (Ct. App. 2013), did assert a promissory estoppel claim. There, a group of City of Columbia retired firefighters and police officers alleged that they relied on promises from the City's human resources department that the City would continue to provide them with health insurance following retirement at no cost to the retirees.

Id. While an employee handbook may create an employment contract, it does so only when: "(1) the handbook provisions and procedures in question apply to the employee; (2) the handbook sets out procedures binding on the employer; and (3) the handbook does not contain a conspicuous and appropriate disclaimer." Bishop v. City of Columbia, 738 S.E.2d 255, 259 (S.C. Ct. App. 2013) (citations omitted). South Carolina Code Annotated Section 41-1-110 provides as follows:

Id. While an employee handbook may create an employment contract, it does so only when: "(1) the handbook provisions and procedures in question apply to the employee; (2) the handbook sets out procedures binding on the employer; and (3) the handbook does not contain a conspicuous and appropriate disclaimer." Bishop v. City of Columbia, 738 S.E.2d 255, 259 (S.C. Ct. App. 2013) (citations omitted). South Carolina Code Annotated Section 41-1-110 provides as follows:

Judge Barber granted the City summary judgment, but the court of appeals reversed, finding Petitioners’ promissory estoppel claim could proceed, and remanded that claim. Bishop v. City of Columbia, 401 S.C. 651, 738 S.E.2d 255 (Ct. App. 2013). We declined the City’s petition for certiorari.

Judge Barber granted the City summary judgment, but the court of appeals reversed, finding Petitioners’ promissory estoppel claim could proceed, and remanded that claim. Bishop v. City of Columbia, 401 S.C. 651, 738 S.E.2d 255 (Ct. App. 2013). We declined the City’s petition for certiorari.