Certiorari Denied, No. 31,903, November 23, 2009
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Opinion Number: 2010-NMCA-001
Filing Date: June 30 , 2009
Docket No. 28,443
CHRIS L. WEST,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WASHINGTON TRU SOLUTIONS, LLC,
Defendant-Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF EDDY COUNTY
Charles C. Currier, District Judge
Martin Law Firm
W.T. Martin, Jr.
Carlsbad, NM
for Appellant
Sheehan, Sheehan & Stelzner, P.A.
Jaime Dawes
Kim A. Griffith
Luis G. Stelzner
Albuquerque, NM
for Appellee
OPINION
WECHSLER, Judge.
{1} Chris West (Employee) appeals that portion of an order granting summary judgment
in favor of Washington Tru Solutions, LLC (Employer) on Employee’s claims of breach of
an implied contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. As
1
there are questions of material fact regarding the existence of an implied contract that
Employee would not be terminated except for just cause and after the use of progressive
disciplinary procedures, we reverse.
BACKGROUND
{2} Employee was a long-time management-level employee of Employer. In June 2001,
Employer decided to merge Employee’s department with another department and replace
Employee as manager of communications. Employee was reassigned to a position in another
department. Although Employee received the same pay in his new position, he no longer
had any employees to manage, and he perceived the move to have been a demotion. On
August 23, 2002, Employer informed Employee that Employee would receive a salary for
two more months while he looked for another job. Employer asserted that it took this action
because there was not enough work for Employee in his new position.
{3} Employee sued Employer, bringing claims for breach of an implied contract of
employment and for violation of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, among
other claims. Employee believed that he was not terminated because of inadequate job
performance or as a cost-cutting measure, but instead because of interpersonal difficulties
he had with a superior at work and a contractor who was a friend of the superior. The
district court granted summary judgment in favor of Employer.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
{4} Summary judgment is appropriate when “there is no genuine issue as to any material
fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Rule 1-056(C)
NMRA. An issue of fact is genuine if the evidence before the district court would allow a
reasonable factfinder to find in favor of the non-moving party on that issue of fact. See
Goradia v. Hahn Co., 111 N.M. 779, 782, 810 P.2d 798, 801 (1991). We review the district
court’s ruling on a motion for summary judgment de novo. Tafoya v. Rael,
2008-NMSC-057, ¶ 11, 145 N.M. 4, 193 P.3d 551. In doing so, we “construe all reasonable
inferences from the record in favor of the party that opposed the motion.” Hamberg v.
Sandia Corp., 2008-NMSC-015, ¶ 7, 143 N.M. 601, 179 P.3d 1209 (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted).
THE EXISTENCE OF AN IMPLIED CONTRACT
{5} Employee asserts that the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor
of Employer because genuine issues of material fact exist on the question of whether there
was an implied contract that Employee would not be terminated except for cause and after
Employee was afforded the benefit of certain disciplinary proceedings that would have given
him a chance to correct any problem his employer may have had with him.
General Principles
2
{6} Employment is generally terminable at will, absent an express contract to the
contrary. Lopez v. Kline, 1998-NMCA-016, ¶ 10, 124 N.M. 539, 953 P.2d 304 (filed 1997).
There is an exception, however, when an employer creates an implied contract limiting its
ability to terminate an employee at will, by either providing that termination will only be for
cause or providing for certain procedural protections prior to termination. See Mealand v.
E. N.M. Med. Ctr., 2001-NMCA-089, ¶ 9, 131 N.M. 65, 33 P.3d 285. Such an implied
contract is created when an employer’s “words or conduct . . . support a reasonable
expectation on the part of employees that they will be dismissed only in accordance with
specified procedures or for specified reasons.” Id. The factfinder must examine the totality
of the circumstances of the employment relationship when considering whether an
employer’s words or conduct constituted an implied promise modifying the at-will
relationship. Lopez, 1998-NMCA-016, ¶ 12. An implied promise may be found in written
or oral representations, in the conduct of the parties, or in a combination of representations
and conduct. See Newberry v. Allied Stores, Inc., 108 N.M. 424, 427-28, 773 P.2d 1231,
1234-35 (1989).
{7} Whether an implied contract exists is generally a question of fact. See Hartbarger
v. Frank Paxton Co., 115 N.M. 665, 669, 857 P.2d 776, 780 (1993). Therefore, the issue
ordinarily should not be decided on summary judgment. Kiedrowski v. Citizens Bank, 119
N.M. 572, 575, 893 P.2d 468, 471 (Ct. App. 1995). But, because an employee’s expectation
based on an employer’s words or conduct must meet “a certain threshold of objectivity,” id.,
an employer may be entitled to judgment as a matter of law if the employee’s expectations
are not objectively reasonable. See Mealand, 2001-NMCA-089, ¶ 9. Therefore, the issue
this Court must decide on review of the district court’s order granting summary judgment
is “whether, on the evidence before the [district] court, a reasonable jury could find that
[Employer’s] words and conduct support an objectively reasonable expectation that its
employees will be dismissed only in accordance with specified procedures and for specified
reasons.” Id.
Employee’s Objectively Reasonable Belief in the Existence of an Implied Contract
{8} Employee presented evidence that Employer promulgated an employee handbook
(Handbook) and a manager’s reference guide (Guide) that contained representations that
could reasonably be construed to assure employees that they would be terminated only for
cause and after the use of certain remedial disciplinary procedures. The Handbook states
that Employer’s “[p]ersonnel policies and procedures are specifically designed to meet the
needs of employees” and that Employer “endeavor[s] to provide a positive environment
where each employee enjoys . . . individual responsibility for career development.” The
Handbook includes a section on employee performance, which states that Employer seeks
to create a “performance evaluation program [that] is as fair, efficient, and productive as
possible,” in order to “provide[] documentation in support of promotion and other personnel
decisions,” ensure that an employee’s performance is linked to his pay, and “provide[]
specific performance feedback, . . . enabling [the employee] to grow and develop”
professionally. The Handbook also includes a section called the “Rules of Conduct and
Progressive Discipline Process,” which states that its rules “are provided for your general
3
information and to assure uniform and fair administration of disciplinary action if ever it is
necessary.” It states unequivocally, “[y]ou will be expected to abide by these rules.” The
Handbook then sets out three types of misconduct, with numerous detailed examples of each,
and provides the consequences for such acts. The Handbook states that the list “is not an all-
inclusive list” and that “[a]ny disciplinary action will, of course, be based on the facts and
circumstances in each specific case[,] as well as the total record of the employee(s)
involved.”
{9} The Guide states that it is “intended to define managers’ and employees’
responsibilities within division policies, procedures and practices; provide a framework for
decision making; and establish reasonable boundaries of behavior and authority.” The Guide
informs managers that an employee’s “[g]ood performance, misconduct or poor performance
should be recorded when it occurs and communicated to the employee immediately,
regardless of when the formal, scheduled appraisal is given.” With respect to deficient job
performance, the Guide states that
[i]f a manager finds an employee’s overall performance unsatisfactory, the
manager places the employee on a Performance Action Track. At the time
of this decision, the manager must contact Human Resources, and a
specialist advisor will be assigned.
The Performance Action Track is from 2 months to 6 months in duration and
ends with either fully satisfactory performance or application of progressive
discipline, which may lead to termination.
The Guide also contains a section on Performance Improvement Plans. That section
explains that a
Performance Improvement Plan serves as a notice of need for improved
performance. The Plan must include:
• identification of performance deficiencies
• clearly written expectations and goals that the employee must achieve
for fully satisfactory performance
• the period of time in which improved performance is expected
• possible consequences if performance is not fully satisfactory at the
end of the Plan period [and]
• a schedule of planned, periodic meetings to document and assess
progress[.]
....
If an employee subject to a Performance Improvement Plan does not meet the
required level of performance, the employee is issued a formal, final notice
requiring immediate improved performance. This is considered the final step
in progressive discipline prior to termination.
4
The Guide additionally contains steps for managers to use in coaching and counseling
employees in order to improve performance.
{10} The Guide states that Employer’s “own best interest lies in ensuring fair treatment
of all employees and in making certain that disciplinary actions are prompt, uniform, and
impartial. The major purpose of any disciplinary action is to correct the problem, prevent
recurrence, and prepare the employee for satisfactory service in the future.” The Guide
provides that while there may be some extreme rule violations—such as “theft, assault on
another employee, or a willful violation of a safety rule that could produce a life-threatening
situation”—that might warrant immediate termination, “most rule violations, including poor
or unacceptable work performance, are handled in accordance with the Process Guidelines
outlined in this section. Managers and employees are expected to understand and implement
this process.”
{11} The Guide contains a section entitled “Wrongful Discharge.” That section states that
[s]ince most wrongful discharge claims are based on employees’ contentions
that they were arbitrarily or unjustly terminated, an organization’s
establishment of and adherence to a progressive discipline policy can protect
an employer from such liability.
While employment [with Employer] is at will, [Employer] applies processes
within progressive discipline to provide for application of a test for just
cause.
....
Although promising to use a just cause test might undermine the at-will
nature of employment, some employers choose to apply the test in order to
create a sense of fairness.
The Guide then sets out several steps Employer uses in order to ensure that the requirement
of just cause for termination is met. It states that “[a]ny proposed discipline beyond formal
documented counseling must be reviewed by a higher level of management, in consultation
with the Human Resources . . . Manager. The purpose of this review is to ensure that
discipline is justified and uniformly applied.” Although the Guide seeks to ensure
uniformity, it indicates that “[m]anagers, with approval from the Human Resource
Department, can modify application of the Process Guidelines to reflect mitigating or
aggravating circumstances, the employee’s length of service, or the employee’s past record.”
{12} Employee presented evidence that Employer trained its managers that they were
expected to use the progressive disciplinary procedures outlined in the Handbook and the
Guide and that employees could rely on progressive discipline being applied to them.
Furthermore, Employee presented evidence that it was Employer’s practice to discharge an
employee only for cause and after first giving an employee the opportunity to remedy the
problem through the progressive disciplinary process.
5
{13} Employer points out that there was also evidence in the record to suggest that a
reasonable employee should not have relied on Employer’s representations that employees
would be terminated only for cause and after progressive discipline. The Handbook states:
This guide is not a contract of employment or a guarantee of employment for
any period of time, and nothing herein changes the at-will nature of your
employment.
....
No manager is authorized to create binding employment contracts on behalf
of the company with any individual, whether orally or in writing, except
through procedures as may be authorized by the Senior Executive Vice
President of Human Resources.
....
The policies, procedures, and programs outlined in this handbook are
designed to serve as guidelines to keep you informed of relevant facts about
your employment. They are not intended to create any kind of contractual
relationship and are subject to change at [Employer’s] discretion, with or
without notice.
....
[R]elease for unsatisfactory performance or violations of rules of conduct or
for any reason can take place at times other than during [an employee’s]
initial review period.
{14} The Guide contains similar disclaimers:
Managers and employees should understand that the guide does not modify
the company’s “at will” employment doctrine nor provide employees any
kind of contractual rights. The guide does not form an expressed or implied
contract or promise that the policies outlined will be applied in all cases.
[Employer] may add, revoke, or modify policies at any time.
The Guide also states that “[a]lthough employment with [Employer] is based on mutual
consent and both the employee and [Employer] have the right to terminate employment at
will, with or without cause or advance notice, [Employer] may use progressive discipline at
its discretion.”
{15} Employer also points to certain statements Employee made during his deposition:
Employee stated that no representative of Employer ever told him he could only be
terminated for cause, he did not remember anything that any representative of Employer ever
did that led him to believe that he could only be terminated for cause, and there was nothing
6
in writing that he received establishing that he could only be terminated for cause.
Employee also stated that he believed that the use of progressive discipline was within a
manager’s discretion.
{16} In light of the conflicting evidence before the district court, we agree with Employee
that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Employer and Employee had an
implied contract that Employer would only terminate Employee for cause and after certain
disciplinary procedures were followed. Whether such an implied contract exists is based on
the totality of the circumstances of the employment relationship between the parties, see
Lopez, 1998-NMCA-016, ¶ 12, and a reasonable jury could conclude that the evidence of
Employer’s statements in the Handbook, the Guide, and the managers’ training sessions,
along with the evidence that Employer had a practice of only terminating for cause,
reasonably led Employee to rely on Employer’s words and conduct.
{17} While we recognize that Employer also made contrary representations in the
Handbook and the Guide, such disclaimers are not dispositive. First, the Handbook and the
Guide themselves contain specific policies regarding termination for just cause and the use
of progressive discipline that an employee might reasonably conclude modify the at-will
relationship, despite these disclaimers. See, e.g., Beggs v. City of Portales, 2009-NMSC-
023, ¶ 20, 146 N.M. 372, 210 P.3d 798 (“[E]ven where a personnel manual purports to
disclaim any intentions of forming contractual obligations enforceable against an employer,
a fact finder may still look to the totality of the parties’ statements and actions, including the
contents of [the] personnel manual, to determine whether contractual obligations were
created.”); Kiedrowski, 119 N.M. at 575, 893 P.2d at 471 (“[A]n implied contract can still
exist in spite of a disclaimer, where the employer’s conduct reasonably leads employees to
believe that they will not be terminated without just cause and a fair procedure.”); cf.
McGinnis v. Honeywell, Inc., 110 N.M. 1, 5-6, 791 P.2d 452, 456-57 (1990) (holding that
a disclaimer in a supervisor’s manual was not dispositive on the issue of whether the manual
modified an express employment contract). Read together, the Handbook and the Guide
provide that progressive disciplinary procedures apply both to poor job performance and to
misconduct. Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to Employee, a reasonable
jury could find that because Employer established such extensive and specific policies and
procedures for using progressive discipline to address both performance and misconduct,
these representations indicated both that 1) employees would not be terminated for no reason
at all, and 2) progressive disciplinary procedures would apply except in the most extreme
cases. See Mealand, 2001-NMCA-089, ¶¶ 12-13 (stating that the use of specific examples
in a handbook of business reasons for termination could lead an employee to reasonably
infer that the employer “would not discipline or discharge an employee for a reason
unrelated to a legitimate business need” and that “[a]n employee might reasonably believe
that [the employer] would not have described the progressive discipline system in such
detail, nor would it have disseminated the policy to employees, if the progressive discipline
policy was simply a non-binding set of guidelines to be used in management’s complete
discretion”).
{18} Second, even if an employee manual contains clear disclaimers, these may be
superceded by other representations made by the employer outside of the manual—for
7
instance, in oral statements. See Lopez, 1998-NMCA-016, ¶¶ 9 n.1, 16. And, in this case,
Employee presented evidence that Employer put on managers’ training sessions at which
Employer represented that termination was for cause and only after progressive discipline.
{19} Employer argues that summary judgment was appropriate because it is clear that the
policies of termination for just cause and progressive discipline were discretionary with
Employer. But the evidence on this issue was sufficiently conflicting to present an issue of
fact for the jury to resolve. Although there was language in the Handbook and the Guide
indicating that the use of progressive discipline was discretionary, there was also language
indicating that managers and employees “must” or were “expected to” use the outlined
procedures. Furthermore, because the disciplinary procedures contained statements that
there were some infractions that would lead to immediate termination and statements that
managers had discretion to take into account an employee’s work history when determining
how to discipline the employee, a reasonable jury might conclude that this was the sort of
discretion that Employer could reasonably be expected to use—not total discretion to fire
employees without reason or warning. To the degree that Employer drafted the Handbook
and the Guide to contain internal contradictions, it is for the jury to determine how a
reasonable employee would have understood the language in the documents. The fact that
there was some evidence indicating that use of the procedures was discretionary does not
require a determination as a matter of law that there was no implied contract. See Hudson
v. Vill. Inn Pancake House of Albuquerque, Inc., 2001-NMCA-104, ¶¶ 8-18, 23, 131 N.M.
308, 35 P.3d 313 (affirming the finding of an implied contract only to discharge for cause
and after specific warnings and an opportunity to correct deficient performance even though
there was conflicting evidence about whether the use of warnings was mandatory or
discretionary).
{20} Finally, we note that this Court recently concluded that Employer made no
representations in an employee handbook and in certain training sessions that would create
a question of material fact as to whether a different employee had an implied contract that
she would only be terminated for cause. See Zarr v. Washington Tru Solutions, LLC, 2009-
NMCA-050, ¶¶ 17-23, 146 N.M. 274, 208 P.3d 919. Employer has not argued that Zarr
controls this case, and we conclude that it does not. It does not appear that the plaintiff in
Zarr relied on the Guide as part of her evidence of an implied contract, and we believe that
the Guide contains significant representations—both as to the fact that progressive discipline
applies, not only to incidents of misconduct but also to cases of poor job performance, and
as to the fact that Employer uses a just cause standard for termination—that help to create
genuine issues of material fact in this case. The difference between the outcome here and
in Zarr highlights just how fact-dependent our inquiry must be when a claim of breach of
an implied contract is raised. In this case, the evidence Employee presented to the district
court demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Employer’s words and
conduct would lead a reasonable employee to believe that Employer was bound by an
implied contract.
Employee’s Subjective Belief that Employer Would Not Fire Him Except for Cause and
After the Application of Progressive Discipline
8
{21} Employer asserts that summary judgment is appropriate because Employee made
statements in his deposition that could be construed to mean that he had no subjective
expectation that he would only be terminated for cause and after progressive discipline.
However, there is ample evidence in the record that, when viewed in the light most favorable
to Employee, indicates that Employee did in fact have such a subjective expectation.
Although Employee said at one point in his deposition that progressive discipline was
discretionary with each manager, just moments earlier, Employee also testified that in the
managers’ training he received, progressive discipline was presented as what was expected
of him and was not optional. It should be left to a jury to sort out any potential conflict in
these statements.
{22} Employee also repeatedly stated in his deposition that he subjectively expected
progressive discipline to apply to him. In response to a question about whether he
understood that his employment was at will, Employee said:
In a sense. But I believe, and I’m not sure if it’s in this same
document or the manager handbook or maybe both, there are also built-in
steps when an employee is deficient or has a disciplinary problem that you
go through those steps to correct whatever the deficiency is. And in my
mind, that’s what would lead to the at will. I don’t think the company was
into discharging people willy-nilly for no reason at all.
....
And I had every reason to believe that had there been something wrong with
my performance, that I would have been placed in one of the programs
spelled out in these documents, that there is a series of steps that a manager
and an employee would go through to improve whatever the deficiency was
. . . . And, logically, at the end of that process, if I still hadn’t cut the
mustard, then the at will might kick in. But otherwise why are those things
in those documents?
When asked what Employee understood “at will” to mean, Employee responded:
I think it means you can discharge somebody for any reason . . . [o]r for no
reason. But I also maintain that the company wasn’t into doing that to
people. The doctrine of the company was and always has been, as far as I’m
concerned, and it’s written into some of these documents, that we treat our
employees with dignity and respect, and that doesn’t mean shoving them out
the door for no reason.
When asked about whether he understood the disclaimer that the Handbook does not create
a contract, Employee said, “[b]ut if there is not an implied contractual relationship, why even
bother to put the corrective steps in this document? I mean, it’s contradictory.” To the
degree that Employee’s deposition testimony reflected a degree of subjective confusion
about the relationship between representations by Employer that employment was at will and
9
other representations by Employer that employment would only be terminated for just cause
and after disciplinary proceedings, the confusion was created by the potentially contradictory
nature of Employer’s own statements. It is not appropriate on summary judgment to single
out those portions of Employee’s deposition that acknowledge that no representative of
Employer ever expressly stated that employment was not at will or that progressive
discipline would be applied in all cases and ignore those portions of Employee’s deposition
that, when viewed in the light most favorable to Employee, reasonably state that Employee
subjectively expected that he would be fired only for cause and after progressive discipline.
Accordingly, there is a genuine issue of material fact as to the nature of Employee’s
subjective expectations.
Employer’s Representations Regarding Progressive Discipline
{23} Finally, we note our disagreement with Employer’s suggestion that Employer’s
representations about progressive discipline are not relevant to the issues on appeal.
Employer suggests that because Employer claims that Employee was not fired either due to
misconduct or poor job performance, but instead was fired for some other reason or no
reason at all, Employer’s representations about progressive discipline would not control its
conduct in this case, even if there were an implied contract to apply progressive discipline
in cases of poor work performance or misconduct. Assuming that the representations in the
Handbook and the Guide create an implied contract to follow those procedures in cases of
misconduct and poor performance, we cannot say that, as a matter of law, those
representations are irrelevant to the question of whether the implied agreement between
Employer and Employee left Employer free to terminate employees simply because a
superior did not like them or for some other non-business-related reason. A reasonable jury
could conclude that such an interpretation of the Handbook and the Guide would be
unreasonable and would render the disciplinary procedures contained within them
meaningless since Employer could then always fire an employee for an arbitrary reason in
order to avoid having to follow the procedures. Because Employer promulgated such a
comprehensive and specific set of procedures for handling almost all types of work-related
problems and made a number of statements to suggest that these policies were put into place
in order to create a sense of fairness, a jury could conclude that a reasonable employee might
understand that these representations were intended to inform employees that they would not
be terminated arbitrarily, for no reason, or for reasons that cannot be justified by reference
to legitimate business interests. See Mealand, 2001-NMCA-089, ¶¶ 12-13. Therefore,
Employer’s representations about the use of progressive discipline are relevant even when
Employer terminates an employee for reasons it asserts are unrelated to performance or
misconduct.
{24} Employer cites to statements by the district court during the hearing to support its
argument that progressive discipline is irrelevant. However, the district court appeared to
rely more heavily on the Handbook than on the Guide or other evidence for its conclusion
that Employer’s policies regarding progressive discipline were not relevant. But the district
court was required to look at the totality of the circumstances of the employment
relationship, and Employer’s representations in the Guide and in management training
sessions were part of the totality of the circumstances. Accordingly, it was error to view the
10
Handbook as the document that primarily defined the employment relationship.
EMPLOYER’S BREACH OF ANY IMPLIED CONTRACT
{25} Employee asserts that there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether
Employer’s stated reasons for firing Employee were pretextual. This argument raises the
issue of whether any implied contract between the parties was breached by Employer’s
alleged conduct of firing Employee without cause and/or without the required disciplinary
procedures and concealing the true nature of its action by asserting that Employee was fired
for legitimate business reasons. Employer does not dispute that there are material questions
of fact on this issue; instead, Employer simply points out that this issue is not relevant to the
question of whether the parties were bound by an implied contract. Because we reverse the
district court’s grant of summary judgment, the parties will have the opportunity on remand
to present evidence to the jury on this issue of whether any implied contract was breached.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AT-WILL EMPLOYMENT AND AN IMPLIED
EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT
{26} Without directing this Court to any particular portion of the recording of the
summary judgment hearing, Employee asserts that the district court’s summary judgment
order was based in part on its flawed conclusion that an employer-employee relationship
could be both at will and controlled by an implied contract. We need not address this
argument as we have reversed the district court’s ruling. However, in order to clarify the
matter for the parties on remand, we note that to the degree that there was an implied
contract between the parties, it only covered those matters for which there were
representations that were sufficiently specific for a reasonable employee to rely upon. See,
e.g., Lopez, 1998-NMCA-016, ¶ 16 (holding that where an employer made representations
that a reasonable jury might conclude constituted an implied contract not to terminate an
employee due to her illness, the implied contract was limited to termination for illness, and
not for any other cause).
BREACH OF THE IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING
{27} Employee argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on
Employee’s claim that Employer breached an implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing. Both Employee and Employer agree that the basis of the district court’s ruling was
that there could be no implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing when the employment
relationship was at will. Because we have concluded that there is a question of fact as to
whether the relationship was at will or whether it was governed by an implied contract, we
reverse the district court’s order dismissing Employee’s claim based on a breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
CONCLUSION
{28} There are questions of material fact as to whether there was an implied contract that
Employee would only be fired for cause and after the application of progressive disciplinary
11
procedures. Therefore, we reverse the district court’s order granting summary judgment in
favor of Employer on Employee’s claims of breach of an implied contract and breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. We remand for a trial on the merits of these
claims.
{29} IT IS SO ORDERED.
_____________________________________
JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge
WE CONCUR:
____________________________________
MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge
____________________________________
ROBERT E. ROBLES, Judge
Topic Index for West v. Washington Tru Solutions, No. 28,443
AE APPEAL AND ERROR
AE-RM Remand
CN CONTRACTS
CN-IC Implied Contract
CP CIVIL PROCEDURE
CP-SJ Summary Judgment
EL EMPLOYMENT LAW
EL-DA Disciplinary Action
EL-EP Employer’s Policies
EL-EE Employer-Employee Relationship
EL-EA Employment at Will
EL-EC Employment Contract
EL-TE Termination of Employment
12