## Facts

- John M. Hayes worked for several years at a Garfield’s restaurant and was promoted to assistant manager.
- Hayes had no written employment contract and was employed for an indefinite term.
- Hayes alleged he was told he would remain employed as long as he did an adequate or satisfactory job.
- Hayes alleged he discovered indications that his manager was stealing from the restaurant.
- Hayes alleged he confronted the manager and indicated he intended to investigate and report the suspected embezzlement, after which he was discharged.
- The manager was later convicted on multiple embezzlement counts involving the restaurant.
- Hayes sued for (1) breach of an express or implied contract for continued employment and (2) wrongful discharge in violation of Oklahoma public policy based on his reporting/investigation efforts.
- The trial court dismissed for failure to state a claim; the intermediate appellate court affirmed; the Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the appellate opinion, and reviewed the dismissal de novo.

## Issues

1. Whether oral assurances of continued employment “as long as” performance was adequate/satisfactory were sufficiently definite to create an express or implied contract limiting termination and overcoming at-will employment.
2. Whether terminating an at-will employee for reporting and attempting to investigate a supervisor’s embezzlement from the employer states a public-policy wrongful discharge claim under Oklahoma’s narrow exception to at-will employment.

## Decision

- The Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of both claims.
- The alleged oral assurances were too vague and indefinite to create enforceable job-security terms under either express or implied contract theories; Hayes remained an at-will employee.
- The public-policy wrongful discharge claim failed because the reported misconduct primarily implicated the employer’s private, proprietary interests rather than a clear mandate of public policy protecting a direct public interest.

## Legal Principles

- Oklahoma presumes employment for an indefinite term is at-will absent a definite term or specific, substantive restrictions on the employer’s ability to terminate.
- General, subjective statements that continued employment depends on “adequate” or “satisfactory” performance are insufficient, as a matter of law, to create an enforceable promise of job security or an implied contract limiting discharge.
- Oklahoma’s public-policy wrongful discharge tort applies only when termination violates a clear and compelling public policy identified in Oklahoma constitutional, statutory, or decisional law.
- Reporting internal wrongdoing that primarily harms the employer’s private financial interests, without a stronger public-policy basis, does not satisfy the public-policy requirement for the tort.

## Conclusion

The court held that indefinite, performance-based oral assurances do not alter at-will employment and that discharge for reporting internal embezzlement directed at the employer, without a clear public-policy mandate protecting such reporting as a public interest, does not support a public-policy wrongful discharge claim.


Hayes v. Eateries, Inc., 905 P.2d 778 (Okla. 1995)