H. Robert Highstone, Sr. v. Westin Engineering, Incorporated

Citations: 187 F.3d 548; 15 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 757; 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 18399; 1999 WL 591511Docket: 98-1548

Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; August 9, 1999; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

H. Robert Highstone, Sr. appealed a judgment from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan favoring Westin Engineering, Inc. in his employment discrimination case. Highstone contended that he had an enforceable employment contract based on oral assurances from a Westin executive regarding job security and written policies in the employee manual, which he claimed prevented termination without just cause. The district court ruled that Highstone was an at-will employee, allowing Westin to terminate him due to a lack of work, which led to the appeal.

Highstone commenced employment with Westin in September 1992, expressing concerns about job security during his interview. He alleged that the Chief Engineer assured him of ample work due to a significant contract with the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department, though this claim was disputed by the engineer. Highstone signed an "Employee Agreement" acknowledging it was not a contract of employment and received Westin's policy manual.

In 1995, Westin informed Highstone of disappointing revenue expectations and subsequently terminated his employment on April 28, 1996. Highstone initiated a lawsuit on July 16, 1996, alleging breach of contract and age discrimination, later dropping the latter claim. He amended his complaint to include a breach of legitimate expectations based on the employee manual. The district court granted summary judgment to Westin on both claims on April 13, 1998, leading to Highstone's timely appeal. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision.

A district court's grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo, with summary judgment appropriate when there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law under Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Evidence must be viewed in favor of the nonmoving party to assess if a sufficient disagreement exists that necessitates a factfinder's review. Highstone asserts that an express and implied employment contract existed based on oral assurances from a Westin executive during his pre-hiring interview, claiming that Westin's policy manual fostered legitimate expectations of job security with just-cause termination promises. However, Michigan law generally presumes employment is at will, which can be rebutted by evidence of an express contract for a definite term or provisions against termination without just cause. Additionally, written employer policies may create enforceable contracts if they establish legitimate job security expectations. Highstone's claim for just-cause employment is based on oral statements made during his interview, which must be interpreted based on reasonable meanings attributed by the involved parties. The Michigan Supreme Court indicates that oral contracts for job security are only recognized under circumstances showing mutual intent to bind, and such statements must be clear and unequivocal. Highstone's assurances regarding job stability from Westin executives are characterized as vague representations, reflecting optimistic hope rather than concrete promises of secure employment, thus failing to establish a binding contract for just-cause employment.

In Lytle v. Malady, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that a supervisor's assurances regarding job security and advancement did not establish a just-cause employment relationship; these statements reflected mere hope rather than a contractual obligation. Similarly, in the current case, Highstone failed to demonstrate any negotiation or intent to create a just-cause employment relationship with Westin, as he did not discuss termination grounds during his deposition. The district court concluded that the oral statements made in the interview were insufficient to create a just-cause employment expectation, resulting in a summary judgment for Westin on the breach of contract claim.

Regarding Westin's employee policy manual, the Michigan Supreme Court has established that written policies can create enforceable rights if they instill a legitimate expectation of just-cause employment. However, Highstone's evidence did not meet the necessary specificity or commitment. The policy manual included clear disclaimers stating it was not a contract and did not guarantee employment, echoed by case law indicating similar disclaimers negate just-cause expectations. Westin also explicitly reserved the right to terminate employees for various reasons, which further undermines claims of just-cause employment. Additionally, the absence of any discharge-for-cause policy in the manual reinforces that it does not reasonably create such expectations. 

After revisions to the manual in response to legal concerns, which were communicated to employees before Highstone's termination, the final version reaffirmed that all Westin employees were at-will and that neither the Employee Agreement nor the manual guaranteed ongoing employment.

Westin has the authority to unilaterally amend its policy manual. In the case of Bankey v. Storer Broadcasting Co., the Michigan Supreme Court determined that an employer can modify written policy statements that create employee expectations regarding discharge, provided that reasonable notification is given to affected employees. Westin fulfilled this requirement by sending two emails and making the manual accessible online. Despite Highstone's claim of not receiving the revised manual, the addition of the term "at-will" did not alter his employment status, as he was already an at-will employee. The original manual did not promise discharge only for cause, confirming that Highstone's employment was at-will throughout. Consequently, the district court's summary judgment in favor of Westin Engineering, Inc. is affirmed. Notably, unlike the manuals in the Toussaint case, Westin's manual contains no just-cause termination provision.