dissenting, with whom TAYLOR, J., joins.
This is yet another case to come before us in which an employer has tried to satisfy the court’s secret concept of an adequate disclaimer in an employee handbook. The employer was, in essence, told: “Sorry, you failed again — but keep trying — you may get it right.” Why don’t we just tell litigants what is “right?”
I dissent because the disclaimer in this employee handbook was clear, explicit and adequate to inform any reasonable employee that the at-will employment relationship was preserved. I dissent also because the court fails once again to inform an employer what is acceptable as an effective disclaimer in an employee handbook.
The court has been liberal in holding that an employee handbook can create a contract which will eliminate the at-will status of the employee: (a) Alexander v. Phillips Oil Co., 707 P.2d 1385, 1388 (Wyo.1985); (b) Leithead v. American Colloid Co., 721 P.2d 1059, 1063 (Wyo.1986); (c) Mobil Coal Producing, Inc. v. Parks, 704 P.2d 702, 708 (Wyo.1985); (d) McDonald v. Mobil Coal Producing, Inc., 789 P.2d 866, 870 (Wyo.1990), reh’g granted 820 P.2d 986, 990 (Wyo.1991).
In Mobil Coal Producing, Inc. v. Parks, 704 P.2d 702, 708 (Wyo.1985), we affirmed an award of damages to an employee because the employer did not substantially comply with its handbook when it terminated the employee. In Parks the court found that the provisions of the handbook altered the employer’s unfettered right to discharge an employee any time, without cause. Parks, 704 P.2d at 707.
In McDonald v. Mobil Coal Producing, Inc. (McDonald I), 789 P.2d 866, 870 (Wyo.=1990), the employee manual listed causes for discipline and a five-step disciplinary process. The employment application signed by the employee stated:
I agree that any offer of employment, and acceptance thereof, does not constitute a binding contract of any length, and that such employment is terminable at the will of either party, subject to applicable state and/or federal laws.
789 P.2d at 867-68. The majority found that the effect of the disclaimer in the revised handbook was that there was not a contract between the parties but that, nevertheless, promissory estoppel applied. On appeal, we reversed summary judgment for the employer. McDonald I, 789 P.2d at 870.
The court granted rehearing in McDonald I, and in McDonald v. Mobil Coal Producing, Inc. (McDonald II), 820 P.2d 986, 990 (Wyo.1991), held that summary judgment should be reversed to determine whether Mobil’s course of conduct created manifestations of Mobil’s assent to contract that were sufficient to create reasonable reliance by the employee. In addition to the disclaimer above recited, in McDonald I the handbook also stated:
[This handbook] is not a comprehensive policies and procedures manual, nor an employment contract.
I dissented in McDonald I and McDonald II on much the same basis that I must dissent from this decision. McDonald I, 789 P.2d at 871 (Cardine, J., dissenting); McDonald II, 820 P.2d at 992 (Cardine, J. dissenting, with whom Thomas, J., joins.). In both McDonald I and II, Mobil disclaimed creating a contract. McDonald I, 789 P.2d at 869; McDonald II, 820 P.2d at 988-89. The disclaimer in this case is even more detailed, clear as to intent, and specific. It reads as follows:
The guidelines outlined in this handbook are for the mutual benefit of this nursing center and its associates. These guidelines include methods of procedure which, when implemented, can effectively enhance the management of a successful nursing center. The executive director and supervisors must therefore reserve all the customary rights of management, including the right to supervise and control all operations; direct all work; interpret, change or cancel all per*1261sonnel policies with or without notice; hire, schedule, terminate, layoff, transfer, promote, reward, discipline, or otherwise manage associates and select the manner, method and means of doing so. This handbook is not a contract and contains no promises, guarantees, representations, agreements, or warranties upon which any prospective, current, or prior associates of this nursing center can reasonably maintain or create any expectations of such.
It appears on page two of the handbook. It is conspicuous. It cannot be misunderstood. Nevertheless, the court found that the above disclaimer in this case was insufficient. I believe the court, in fairness to litigants, should now say what is sufficient. The most the court has said thus far is that the disclaimer must be conspicuous under the standards adopted in Jimenez v. Colorado Interstate Gas Co., 690 F.Supp. 977, 980 (D.Wyo.1988), and that even if the disclaimer is conspicuous, it still may be negated by a course of conduct which implies that cause is required in order to terminate an employee. McDonald II, 820 P.2d at 990-91.
Our rulings discourage employers from providing their employees with a manual. This deprives employees of useful information about company policies. The dilemma businesses face was well described in this law review article:
Employers who have large numbers of employees or who have complicated company policies find themselves in a precarious position. If these employers do not promulgate any sort of policy manual, they may be required to formulate employee policy on an ad hoc basis and face administrative chaos. Conversely, if they do issue a manual and comply with its procedures to such a degree that their employees reasonably expect them to continue to do so in the future, they may be subjected to unintended contractual liability.
Michael W. Wallace, “Employee Manuals as Implied Contracts: The Guidelines That Bind,” 27 Tulsa L.J. 263, 263-64 (1991) (hereinafter: “Employee Manuals as Implied Contracts").
My other concern with discouraging employers from issuing manuals is that employees will be deprived of useful safety information that is sometimes contained in the employee manuals. Without a handbook, employees are not apprised of communication processes within the company that are important for maintaining a positive work environment. The time is now for the court to clearly state what would be sufficient, not just continue ruling ad hoc that the particular disclaimer before the court is insufficient.
I would adopt a straight-forward rule that gives clear guidance to employers. One treatise gives employers this advice:
Disclaimers are most likely to survive a legal challenge if they are clearly stated and conspicuously placed in an appropriate document, and if the employee acknowledges receipt and review of the document including the disclaimer. Employers may also want to provide in the disclaimer itself that the disclaimer may only be modified in writing by management. Employers that include disclaimers in their policies are well-advised to carefully review the terms and conditions of employment, including disclaimers, with new employees and to review company policies, including the limitations on the enforceability of those policies, periodically with employees.
Alfred G. Feliu, Primer on Individual Employee Rights, 23 (1992).
There are disclaimers in use today that effectively continue the at-will status of employees. Sears, Roebuck and Company have used this disclaimer:
In consideration of my employment, I agree to conform to the rules and regulations of Sears, Roebuck and Co., and my employment and compensation can be terminated with or without cause, and with or without notice, at any time, at the option of either the Company or myself. I understand that no store manager or representative of Sears, Roebuck and Co., other than the president or vice-president of the Company, has any authority to enter into any agreement for *1262employment for any specified period of time, or to make any agreement contrary to the foregoing.
Reid v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 790 F.2d 453, 456 (6th Cir.1986). This disclaimer has been repeatedly upheld.
Courts repeatedly uphold disclaimers in employee handbooks. See e.g., Preston v. Champion Home Builders Inc., 187 A.D.2d 795, 589 N.Y.S.2d 940, 941-42 (1992); French v. Foods, Inc., 495 N.W.2d 768, 770 (Iowa 1993). Not only have other courts accepted handbook disclaimers, but they have accepted disclaimers that are substantially less detailed than disclaimers this court has rejected. See Preston, 187 A.D.2d 795, 589 N.Y.S.2d at 941 (manual contained statement “the company retains the right to terminate your employment at any time, with or without cause or notice.”). The disclaimer in Preston was accepted by the court even though the manual also listed causes for discipline. 589 N.Y.S.2d at 941-42. Other courts strive even more to preserve the employment at-will presumption. In Texas, for example, an employee manual does not impliedly modify at-will status, and only an express modification of at-will status is recognized by Texas courts. Reynolds Mfg. Co. v. Mendoza, 644 S.W.2d 536, 539 (Tex.App.1982); discussed in “Employee Manuals as Implied Contracts ” at 273. Texas courts follow the view that employer manuals are issued by employers in order to provide their employees with information about company policy. The manuals are issued to promote administrative efficiency and without any intention to limit their own conduct. “Employee Manuals as Implied Contracts,” at 273-74 n. 61.
The court is moving along a path which will lead to the eventual demise of the employment at-will presumption. The majority opinion states: “In Wyoming, employment is presumed to be at-will; however, ‘[a] handbook may change the employer’s unfettered right to discharge an employee.' " Maj. op. at 1257 (citations omitted). The majority does not then proceed through its analysis by presuming that Sanchez’s employment was at will, rather the majority presumes there was a contract unless the disclaimer was effective. The majority’s willingness to read every handbook as a contract, despite a disclaimer, renders the at-will presumption hollow.
Unless the court clearly defines what is a legally sufficient handbook disclaimer, then a handbook will become a contract with every employee. By not making the law clear, the court puts employers in a position wherein the safer practice will be to issue no employee handbook. The course now being pursued by the court only creates confusion and continued litigation.