## Facts

- Evelyn H. Conner was hired by the City of Forest Acres in July 1984 as a police dispatcher and was terminated on October 7, 1993.
- From November 1992 forward, Conner received multiple reprimands, including for dress-code violations, tardiness, poor work performance, leaving work without permission, and abusive language.
- In July 1993, Conner received an “unsatisfactory” evaluation and was placed on a 90-day probation; she received additional reprimands in August 1993.
- Conner’s October 1993 evaluation reflected only slight improvement, and the City terminated her employment.
- Conner pursued a grievance and disputed many reprimands at the grievance hearing; the grievance committee voted 2–1 to reinstate her, but the City Council rejected that recommendation and upheld the termination.
- Conner received two handbooks during employment and signed acknowledgments; the 1993 acknowledgment stated she was an at-will employee and that nothing in the policies created an employment contract or limited the City’s right to dismiss.
- The 1993 manual also contained a code of conduct and disciplinary provisions described as progressive discipline, including mandatory-sounding language indicating steps the City would or shall take before termination.
- Conner sued the City and two individual officials (the police chief and her supervisor), alleging breach of contract based on the handbook, breach of contract accompanied by a fraudulent act, and bad faith discharge.

## Issues

1. Whether the 1993 personnel manual and related documents created a unilateral employment contract despite an at-will disclaimer, making summary judgment on the breach-of-contract claim improper.
2. Whether evidence supported a triable claim for breach of contract accompanied by a fraudulent act tied to Conner’s termination.
3. Whether South Carolina recognizes an independent tort claim for “bad faith discharge” in this employment context.
4. Whether the individual defendants were properly before the appellate court given notice-of-appeal requirements.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed the Court of Appeals as to the City and reversed as to adding the individual defendants as parties.
- As to the City, the court held summary judgment was improper on the breach-of-contract claim because the manual’s mandatory disciplinary language could be read to modify at-will employment, creating a jury question despite the disclaimer.
- As to the City, the court held summary judgment was improper on breach of contract accompanied by a fraudulent act because factual disputes existed about whether disciplinary grounds were fabricated or manipulated in connection with a contractual breach.
- The court declined to recognize a stand-alone tort of “bad faith discharge” in this context, leaving any remedy to contract or other established doctrines.
- The court ordered dismissal of the individual defendants because they were improperly treated as parties on appeal due to procedural defects in identifying parties.

## Legal Principles

- In South Carolina, an employee handbook or manual may form a unilateral employment contract when it uses definite, mandatory language that an employee could reasonably understand as limiting the employer’s right to terminate.
- A clear at-will disclaimer is significant but may not be dispositive when other handbook provisions contain detailed, mandatory disciplinary procedures that plausibly promise process or “for cause” termination.
- When a handbook contains both an at-will disclaimer and mandatory progressive-discipline terms, whether the manual alters at-will status and whether the employer complied are often fact questions not suitable for summary judgment.
- A claim for breach of contract accompanied by a fraudulent act requires (1) a contract breach, (2) fraudulent intent relating to the breach, and (3) a fraudulent act accompanying the breach; disputed evidence that termination grounds were contrived may defeat summary judgment if an underlying contract claim is viable.
- Appellate procedure requires timely and proper identification of parties in the notice of appeal; parties may be dismissed when they are not properly brought before the appellate court.

## Conclusion

The court held that the City’s personnel manual, despite an at-will disclaimer, could create enforceable contractual limits through mandatory disciplinary language, requiring jury resolution of breach and related fraudulent-act allegations, while rejecting an independent tort of bad faith discharge and dismissing individual defendants who were not properly made parties on appeal.


Conner v. City of Forest Acres, 560 S.E.2d 606 (S.C. 2002)