## Facts

- James Elliott began working for Montgomery County Community College in 1979 and received the College’s Policies and Procedures Manual (P & P Manual); he received the manual again upon promotion in 1988.
- In 1988, the College issued a revised P & P Manual containing an introduction disclaimer stating the manual did not create an express or implied employment contract.
- In 1992, after an investigation into a sexual-harassment accusation, the College disciplined Elliott by demotion and transfer and issued a “last chance” letter warning that any violation of College policy could result in immediate discipline, including dismissal.
- In early 1993, the College charged Elliott with leaving work early without permission on four occasions (up to one hour each time), contrary to a manual provision requiring employees to stay until the end of the work day; the early departures were undisputed.
- Elliott asserted his supervisor had authorized early departures once duties were complete; the supervisor contended any such permission was limited to a prior “winter term” and did not cover the four incidents.
- The College approved a termination recommendation through its supervisory and human-resources chain, and Elliott’s employment was terminated effective April 2, 1993.
- Elliott sued for breach of an alleged employment contract, claiming the manual and related materials limited termination to “for cause” and required specified procedures.

## Issues

1. Whether the College’s P & P Manual created an enforceable employment contract modifying at-will employment.
2. Whether the manual’s disclaimer was clear and conspicuous enough to negate contractual intent as a matter of law.
3. Whether, assuming contractual obligations existed, the College breached them by terminating Elliott on the presented facts.
4. Whether the Maryland Administrative Procedure Act required a jury determination of “cause” and barred summary judgment in this civil action.

## Decision

- The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland affirmed summary judgment for the College.
- The court held the 1988 manual contained a clear and conspicuous disclaimer that prevented reasonable reliance on the manual as creating contractual limits on termination.
- The court further concluded that, even assuming arguendo enforceable obligations, the undisputed evidence showed no actionable breach and no evidence of bad faith.
- The court rejected the argument that the Maryland Administrative Procedure Act required a jury trial on “cause” or otherwise precluded disposition by summary judgment.

## Legal Principles

- Maryland presumes employment is at will unless an employer and employee form an enforceable agreement limiting termination.
- Handbook or manual provisions can create enforceable contractual obligations only when the employer manifests contractual intent; a clear and conspicuous disclaimer can negate that intent and preserve at-will status.
- An employee’s claimed failure to read or recall a properly communicated disclaimer does not defeat its effect if a reasonable employee would understand the manual is noncontractual.
- Summary judgment is proper where no genuine dispute of material fact exists on contract formation or breach; the Maryland Administrative Procedure Act does not, in this context, mandate a jury determination of “cause” in a civil contract suit.

## Conclusion

The court held that the College’s prominently stated handbook disclaimer defeated Elliott’s claim that the manual created contractual job-protection rights, and it affirmed summary judgment because the termination followed an undisputed policy violation in a last-chance setting and the Maryland Administrative Procedure Act did not require a jury trial on cause.


Elliott v. Bd. of Trs. of Montgomery Cnty. Cmty. Coll., 104 Md. App. 93, 655 A.2d 46 (1995)