## Facts

- Craig McDonald worked as a technician at Mobil Coal Producing, Inc.’s coal mine preparation plant from August 1987 to June 1988.
- On his employment application, McDonald signed an acknowledgment that employment was terminable at the will of either party.
- After he began work, Mobil provided an employee handbook stating it was intended to explain policies and procedures and that it was neither a comprehensive manual nor an employment contract.
- The handbook also included statements about “mutual trust” and “fair treatment,” and described a multi-step “Fair Treatment Procedure” allowing employees to raise concerns through supervisory levels.
- After rumors of sexual harassment, McDonald met with supervisors and was told he could either resign or be fired; he resigned.
- McDonald sued Mobil and three supervisors, alleging (1) wrongful discharge based on handbook-based “for cause” limits and (2) breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Mobil and the individual defendants.

## Issues

1. Whether the employee handbook and Mobil’s practices could modify an at-will employment relationship despite an at-will application acknowledgment and a handbook disclaimer.
2. Whether disputed facts supported a promissory-estoppel theory based on handbook assurances and procedures.
3. Whether an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing independently limited Mobil’s right to end an at-will employment relationship.

## Decision

- The Wyoming Supreme Court reversed the summary judgment and remanded.
- The court concluded that summary judgment was improper because material fact questions existed about the legal effect of the handbook language, the disclaimer’s effect, and Mobil’s course of dealing.
- The court rejected using an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing as a stand-alone basis to convert at-will employment into a for-cause relationship on the record presented.
- Although the court’s opinions were fragmented, the dispositive result was that McDonald was entitled to proceed because factual disputes remained, including under a promissory-estoppel theory.

## Legal Principles

- An employee handbook and an employer’s course of dealing can, depending on the facts, modify an at-will relationship by creating enforceable limits on termination.
- A handbook disclaimer that the handbook is “not an employment contract” is not automatically controlling; its clarity and practical effect may still leave triable questions about employee expectations and reliance.
- Promissory estoppel may apply in the employment setting when the employer makes representations that reasonably induce employee reliance and enforcement is needed to avoid injustice; reliance and scope commonly present fact questions.
- The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing does not, by itself, impose “for cause” limits that contradict an otherwise at-will arrangement absent some independent contractual modification.

## Conclusion

The court set aside summary judgment because the handbook’s fair-treatment language, procedures, and disclaimer, together with Mobil’s practices, created triable issues about whether the at-will relationship was modified and whether Mobil’s representations were enforceable through promissory estoppel, while declining to use the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing as an independent bar to at-will termination.


McDonald v. Mobil Coal Producing, Inc., 789 P.2d 866 (Wyo. 1990)