Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Marilyn CRONCE, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. STEUBEN FOODS, INC., Defendant-Appellant.
Supreme Court erred in denying defendant's motion seeking dismissal of the amended complaint for, inter alia, failure to state a cause of action (see CPLR 3211[a][7] ). Plaintiffs, former employees of defendant, allege that they were terminated without regard to seniority in violation of certain provisions in defendant's employee manual. Contrary to the court's determination, those provisions do not constitute an express written limitation on defendant's right to discharge plaintiffs at will. Critically, the employee manual warns that “there are no guarantees that [the seniority policy will be followed] in each and every layoff situation” and refers to the seniority policy as merely an “objective anytime a layoff occurs.” Because these provisions provide no assurance that layoffs will be based on seniority only (see Fieldhouse v. Stamford Hosp. Socy., 233 A.D.2d 540, 541, 649 N.Y.S.2d 527), they cannot serve as the basis for a “binding employment agreement[ ]” (Lobosco v. New York Tel. Co./NYNEX, 96 N.Y.2d 312, 317, 727 N.Y.S.2d 383, 751 N.E.2d 462; see Manning v. Norton Co., 189 A.D.2d 971, 972, 592 N.Y.S.2d 154; Brown v. General Elec. Co., 144 A.D.2d 746, 748, 534 N.Y.S.2d 743).
In any event, the “[m]ere existence of a written policy, without the additional elements identified in Weiner [v. McGraw-Hill, Inc., 57 N.Y.2d 458, 457 N.Y.S.2d 193, 443 N.E.2d 441], does not limit an employer's right to discharge an at-will employee or give rise to a legally enforceable claim by the employee against the employer” (Matter of DePetris v. Union Settlement Assn., 86 N.Y.2d 406, 410, 633 N.Y.S.2d 274, 657 N.E.2d 269). Even assuming, arguendo, that the employee manual created an express limitation on defendant's right of discharge, we conclude that the amended complaint fails to allege “the type of detrimental reliance required by Weiner ” (Manning, 189 A.D.2d at 972, 592 N.Y.S.2d 154; see Ferring v. Merrill Lynch & Co., 244 A.D.2d 204, 664 N.Y.S.2d 279). Plaintiffs thus failed to sustain their “ ‘explicit and difficult pleading burden’ ” necessary to overcome the at-will employment presumption (Matter of LaDuke v. Hepburn Med. Ctr., 239 A.D.2d 750, 753, 657 N.Y.S.2d 810, lv. denied 91 N.Y.2d 802, 667 N.Y.S.2d 682, 690 N.E.2d 491, quoting Sabetay v. Sterling Drug, 69 N.Y.2d 329, 334-335, 514 N.Y.S.2d 209, 506 N.E.2d 919; see Fieldhouse, 233 A.D.2d at 541, 649 N.Y.S.2d 527).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is granted and the amended complaint is dismissed.
MEMORANDUM:
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: June 13, 2003
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
FindLaw for Legal Professionals
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)