Black v. Baker Oil Tools ( 1997 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
PUBLISH
FEB 25 1997
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
TENTH CIRCUIT
ARTHUR L. BLACK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
No. 96-5049
BAKER OIL TOOLS, INC., a division
of Baker Hughes, Inc., a corporation,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Oklahoma
(D.C. No. 95-C-126-K)
Thomas L. Bright, Tulsa, OK, argued the cause for the appellant.
Deirdre O. Dexter, Tulsa, OK, argued the cause for the appellee. Rebecca S. Woodward,
Tulsa, OK, assisted on the brief.
Before EBEL, Circuit Judge, McWILLIAMS, Senior Circuit Judge, and KELLY,
Circuit Judge.
EBEL, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiff Arthur L. Black (“Black”) had two heart attacks while working as an
engineering supervisor for Baker Oil Tools (“Baker Oil”). After the second heart attack,
Baker Oil did not allow Black to continue working.
Black sued Baker Oil in Oklahoma state court for breach of contract, claiming that
under Oklahoma law, Baker Oil created an employment contract by issuing him a
supervisors’ manual and verbally reiterating the policies contained therein. Black
claimed that Baker Oil breached the provisions of the alleged “contract” (the supervisors’
manual) prohibiting discrimination against handicapped people, when it constructively
discharged him because of his heart condition.
Baker Oil, a Texas-based corporation, removed the case to federal district court
under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (1994) (diversity jurisdiction). The district court subsequently
granted Baker Oil’s motion for summary judgment. Black v. Baker Oil Tools, No. 95-C-
126-K, slip op. at 5 (N.D. Okla. Feb. 8, 1996) (Order granting summary judgment) (Kern,
J.). Black appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994). Because we agree with the
district court that no contract was ever created between Black and Baker Oil, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
Arthur L. Black joined the Baker Oil Tool Company as an engineering supervisor
in 1984. He suffered his first heart attack in 1988; his second in July, 1992. Following
the 1992 heart attack, one of Black’s treating physicians, Dr. Gregory J. McWilliams,
wrote that Black had lost more than 70% of his heart function and should retire. By
September, 1992, Dr. McWilliams’s report had come to the attention of Black’s
immediate supervisor Richard Forehand. Forehand, after consulting with other top
management at Baker Oil, offered Black a choice between “voluntary” retirement or a
-2-
long-term disability leave of absence. Black chose retirement, though he protested that he
would rather keep working. Under the “retirement plan,” Black kept his medical benefits,
but received no other retirement benefits.
During Black’s tenure at Baker Oil, Black was issued a copy of Baker Oil’s
“Supervisor Human Resource Policy Manual” (the “Supervisor’s Manual”), which
contained a two-page statement entitled “Human Resources Policies: Equal Employment
Opportunity” (the “EEO Statement”). The EEO Statement expressed Baker Oil’s anti-
discrimination policies, including a policy forbidding discrimination against the
physically handicapped. While working for Baker Oil, Black was additionally apprised of
Baker Oil’s anti-discrimination policies at a managers’ meeting in Houston (the “Houston
meeting”) conducted by a Baker Oil vice-president of human resources. At the same time
he was issued the Supervisor’s Manual, Black was also issued copies of Baker Oil’s
Human Resources Policies and Procedures Manual (the “Policy Manual”) and the Baker
Employee Handbook (“Employee Handbook”), each of which expressly disclaimed
creating any implied or express contractual obligations. The Policy Manual contained the
same EEO Statement that appeared in the Supervisor’s Manual.
In September, 1994, Black sued Baker Oil in Oklahoma state court. Baker Oil
removed the case to federal district court, where Black twice amended his complaint. The
district court granted summary judgment in favor of Baker Oil on all of Black’s claims
contained in his second amended complaint. Black has appealed. We affirm.
-3-
DISCUSSION
Standard of Review
We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Applied Genetics Int’l, Inc. v.
First Affiliated Sec., 912 F.2d 1238, 1241 (10th Cir. 1990). We apply the same standard
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) used by the district court: we determine whether a genuine
issue of material fact was in dispute, and, if not, whether the substantive law was
correctly applied. Id. To demonstrate the existence of a material issue of fact, the
nonmoving party may not rest on its pleadings. Id. Rather, the nonmoving party must set
forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue of fact for trial as to those
dispositive matters for which it carries the burden of proof. Id. Genuine factual issues
must be supported by "more than a mere scintilla of evidence." Vitkus v. Beatrice Co., 11
F.3d 1535, 1539 (10th Cir.1993) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby Inc., 477 U.S. 242(1986)). "To avoid summary judgment, the evidence must be such that a reasonable jury
could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Summary judgment may be granted if the
evidence is merely colorable or is not significantly probative." Id.The Contract Claim
We apply the substantive law of Oklahoma in deciding this case. See Barrett v.
Tallon, 30 F.3d 1296, 1300 (10th Cir. 1994) (a federal court sitting in diversity applies the
-4-
substantive law of the forum state). In general, Oklahoma is an “employment-at-will”
state. Burk v. K-Mart Corp., 770 P.2d 24, 26 (Okla. 1989). In the absence of an express
or implied agreement to the contrary between an Oklahoma employer and its employees,
the employer may terminate an employee at any time “for good cause, for no cause, or
even for cause morally wrong, without being thereby guilty of legal wrong.” Id. “Where
an employment contract is of indefinite duration, it is terminable at will by either party,”
subject to certain exceptions. Hayes v. Eateries, Inc., 905 P.2d 778, 781-82 (Okla. 1995).
In Oklahoma, “no implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing . . . governs the
employer’s decision to terminate in an employment-at-will contract.” Burk, 770 P.2d at
27. If Black was an “at-will” employee in 1992, then he lacks any claim cognizable under
Oklahoma law.
The mere fact that Black and Baker Oil never signed any traditional employment
contract, however, is not fatal to Black’s claim. “A contract consists not only of the
agreements which the parties have expressed in words, but also of the obligations which
are reasonably implied. . . .” Id. at 26-27 (quoting Wright v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of
Md., 54 P.2d 1084, 1087 (Okla. 1935)); see also Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, § 131 (West
1996) (“A contract is either express or implied”); Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, § 133 (West
1996) (“An implied contract is one, the existence and terms of which are manifested by
conduct.”). In Oklahoma, “normally the issue of whether an implied contract exists is
-5-
factual.” Hayes v. Eateries, Inc., 905 P.2d 778, 783 (Okla. 1995) (citing DuPree v.
United Parcel Serv., 956 F.2d 219, 222 (10th Cir. 1992)).
Oklahoma analyzes claims of an implied contract right to job security by balancing
several relevant factors, including: “(a) evidence of some ‘separate consideration’
beyond the employee's services to support the implied term, (b) longevity of employment,
(c) employer handbooks and policy manuals, (d) detrimental reliance on oral assurances,
pre-employment interviews, company policy and past practices and (e) promotions and
commendations.” Hinson v. Cameron, 742 P.2d 549, 554-55 (Okla. 1987). These
factors are all to be weighed, but need not each be proven in order for a court to find an
implied contract. Id.In the present case, Black points to no “separate consideration” furnished by him
in exchange for his claimed right to job security, beyond his continued employment at
Baker Oil. Similarly, he presents no evidence that he detrimentally relied on the language
in Baker Oil’s EEO Statement by, for example, foregoing other employment
opportunities. He presents no evidence of promotions or commendations, nor any
evidence of any definite term of employment specified in the contract. Although he does
present evidence of longevity of employment (11 years), he does not claim that this
-6-
longevity relates in any way to his breach of contract claim. Rather, Black essentially
rests his case on the existence and contents of employer handbooks and policy manuals.1
To contribute to the creation of an implied contract, “the promises in the employee
manual which may operate to restrict the employer's power to discharge must be in
definite terms--not in the form of vague assurances.” Gilmore v. Enogex, Inc., 878 P.2d
360, 368 (Okla. 1994). Thus, although the issue of whether an implied contract exists is
normally factual, if the alleged promises are “nothing more than vague assurances,” then
the issue can be decided as a matter of law. Hayes, 905 P.2d at 783 (citing Dupree v.
United Parcel Serv., 956 F.2d 219, 222 (10th Cir. 1992)). “Guarantees” in a employee
manual are merely “vague assurances” if they do not purport to place “substantive
restrictions” on the reasons the employer may terminate the employee. Id. (citing Blanton
v. Housing Auth., 794 P.2d 412, 415 (Okla. 1990)).
In the case at bar, the parties agree that the relevant portion of the Supervisor’s
Manual is the EEO Statement. The Statement, in pertinent part, provides that:
GENERAL:
It is the policy of Baker Oil Tools to grant equal employment
opportunity to all qualified persons without regard to . . . physical . . .
handicap. . . . To deny one’s contribution to our efforts because he or she is
a member of a minority group is an injustice, not only to the individual, but
to the company as well. It is the intent and desire of the company that equal
employment opportunity will be provided in employment, promotions,
1
He also adds that, at the Houston meeting, Baker Oil verbally manifested its
intention to adhere to the antidiscrimination policies contained in its manuals, and that it
never retracted any statements to that effect.
-7-
wages, benefits and all other privileges, terms, and conditions of
employment.
SCOPE:
The Baker Oil Tools policy of non-discrimination must prevail
throughout every aspect of the employment relationship, including . . .
layoff . . . and termination.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this policy is to affirm the Division’s position
regarding non-discrimination in all matters relating to employment
throughout the organization.
APPLICATIONS
All relations and decisions pertaining to employment . . . [and]
terminations . . . will be executed without regard to . . . physical . . .
handicap. . . .
The threshold issue, then, is whether these provisions are merely “vague
assurances,” or, rather, whether they purport to place substantive limitations on Baker
Oil’s power to discharge handicapped employees. We note that although these provisions
do not purport to extend any specific procedural rights to employees, the
“APPLICATIONS” provision does purport to guarantee, substantively, that employees
will not be terminated on the basis of physical handicap. The district court found, as a
matter of law, that “the EEO statement itself did not provide ‘in definite terms’ a
guarantee against discharge due to handicap, but rather was a general policy statement of
nondiscrimination.” Black, slip op. at 4-5 (citing Gilmore, 878 P.2d at 369; DuPree, 956
F.2d at 222). Reviewing this conclusion de novo, we disagree. We believe the promise
that “[a]ll relations and decisions pertaining to employment . . . [and] terminations . . .
-8-
will be executed without regard to . . . physical . . . handicap. . . .” is more than a mere
“vague assurance” or “puffery,” but rather is a “substantive restriction” on Baker Oil’s
ability to terminate its employees.
Having passed this threshold, the next issue is whether Baker Oil effectively
disclaimed any representations in the Supervisor’s Manual altering the at-will
employment relationship. See Johnson v. Nasca, 802 P.2d 1294, 1297 (Okla. Ct. App.
1990) (“While an employer may disclaim the creation of contractual rights, such a
disclaimer must be clear.”); see generally George L. Blum, Annotation, Effectiveness of
Employer’s Disclaimer of Representations in Personnel Manual or Employee Handbook
Altering At-Will Employment Relationship, 17 A.L.R.5th 1, 88-94 (1994 & Supp. 1996)
(surveying cases where employer’s disclaimer of intent to create contractual liability was
alleged to have been ineffectively communicated to employee). The Supervisor’s Manual
contained no disclaimers--clear or otherwise--of any intention to form any implied
contract. As the district court noted, however, an EEO statement identical to the one
contained in the Supervisor’s Manual was also contained in the Policy Manual, which,
like the Supervisor’s Manual, was given to all supervisors, including Black. The Policy
Manual began with the following disclaimer: “This Manual is not intended to contain a
complete listing of all Baker Oil Tools’ policies nor is it intended to imply any contractual
obligations. Baker Oil Tools expects to continue these policies indefinitely but reserves
the right to terminate or amend them at any time.” (emphasis in original). In addition,
-9-
the Employee Handbook, which did not contain the EEO statement, began with an
introduction containing the following statements:
This handbook is not an employment agreement, a contract of employment,
or a guarantee of continued employment with Baker Oil Tools and/or its
subsidiaries, foreign or domestic. Employment with Baker Oil Tools is ‘at-
will,’ which means that you or Baker may terminate the employment
relationship at any time.
...
DISCLAIMER: This employee handbook has been drafted as a guideline
for our employees. It shall not be constructed to form a contract between
the Company and its employees. Rather, it describes the Company’s
general philosophy concerning policies and procedures.
The district court found that, as a result of the disclaimers in the Policy Manual
and the Employee Handbook, a reasonable trier of fact would be compelled to find that
Black was “on notice that the EEO statement was not meant to imply contractual
obligations upon Baker.” Once again, we disagree. The disclaimer in the Policy Manual
referred to “This Manual.” The disclaimer in the Employee Handbook referred to “This
handbook.” It is not obvious or inevitable that these disclaimers would be understood by
a reasonable reader to encompass all manuals and handbooks promulgated by Baker Oil,
despite their plain language to the contrary.2 Further, Black, in his affidavit, denied
knowledge of the disclaimers in the other two manuals, claiming that, as a supervisor, he
2
Indeed, a supervisor in Black’s position might have reasonably believed that the
disclaimers in the employee manuals were absent from the Supervisor’s Manual precisely
because supervisors were provided with rights not extended to lower-ranking employees.
- 10 -
familiarized himself only with the Supervisor’s Manual. Therefore, it was error to grant
summary judgment to Baker Oil on the basis that the disclaimers were clear and effective.
We thus disagree with the district court’s conclusion that no reasonable jury could
find that the Supervisor’s Manual itself could fulfill the “employer handbooks and policy
manuals” prong of the five-part Hinson test. Accordingly, we find that Black has
satisfied one of the five Hinson factors: (1) a promise contained in an employer handbook
and/or policy manual, and not effectively disclaimed.3
On the other hand, we agree with the district court’s conclusion that Black failed to
satisfy the other four Hinson factors: (1) evidence of some "separate consideration"
beyond the employee's services to support the implied term; (2) detrimental reliance on
oral assurances, pre-employment interviews, company policy and past practices; (3)
promotions and commendations; or (4) longevity of employment where such longevity
can be linked in some way to the alleged promise sought to be enforced against the
company.
Unfortunately, neither the Hinson Court nor any subsequent Oklahoma court has
indicated how the five Hinson factors should be weighed when, as here, they weigh in
opposite directions. We note, however, that the court in Gilmore v. Enogex, Inc., 878
P.2d 360 (Okla. 1994), while citing Hinson, recognized that an implied employment
3
As noted previously, Black also established his longevity of employment at Baker
Oil, but he did not relate this Hinson factor in any way to Baker Oil’s alleged promise of
nondiscrimination in terminations.
- 11 -
contract claim might be brought based solely on the language of an employee manual. Id.at 368 & nn.38-39. In evaluating the merits of such a claim, the Gilmore court reverted to
the general contract principles articulated in Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, § 2 (West 1996) (a
contract requires: (1) parties capable of contracting; (2) their consent; (3) a lawful object;
and (4) sufficient cause or consideration). See id.4
4
The Gilmore court has some additional language stating that an employee manual
“only alters the at-will relationship with respect to accrued benefits--it does not limit
prospectively the power of either party to terminate the relationship at any time. . . .”
Gilmore, 878 P.2d at 368 & n.40 (citing Langdon v. Saga Corp., 569 P.2d 524, 527-28
(Okla. Ct. App. 1976)) (emphasis in original). Taken literally, this statement might imply
that an employee handbook or manual could never support an employee’s claim to job
security under Oklahoma contract law, because termination can be expressed
prospectively. Yet Oklahoma courts both before and after Gilmore have recognized the
potential viability of job security claims predicated on handbook promises. See Hayes,
905 P.2d at 783 (handbook promises to job security which are definite and not “vague
assurances” may be enforceable if reasonably relied on by employee) (decided after
Gilmore); Hinson, 742 P.2d at 554-55 (establishing five-factor test for analyzing
employee manual-based claim to job security) (decided before Gilmore).
The resolution of this apparent inconsistency may lie in the fact that neither
Gilmore nor Langdon involved a handbook-based claim to a right to job security. See
Gilmore, 878 P.2d at 368-69 (denying alleged handbook-based right of employee to
refuse a mandatory drug test); Langdon, 569 P.2d at 526-28 (approving handbook-based
right of employee to accrued but unused paid vacation time and certain severance
allowances). It is likely, therefore, that Gilmore means only that an employer who has
issued a handbook specifying the terms and conditions of employment generally remains
free to terminate or modify those terms and conditions prospectively, by, for example,
rescinding, replacing, or modifying the handbook. If the employee assents to the new
terms and conditions of employment (by continuing to work or otherwise), then the new
handbook governs the employment relationship prospectively, while the superseded
handbook continues to govern disputes related to benefits accrued prior to the
modification. The accrued/prospective dichotomy is hard to apply in a case involving a
claim for job security.
In any event, even assuming arguendo that Baker Oil retained at all times the
(continued...)
- 12 -
Following the lead of the Gilmore court, we analyze Black’s claim in light of these
general contract principles as applied by Oklahoma courts. We find that Black and Baker
Oil were parties capable of contracting, and that agreeing to employment free of
discrimination based on physical handicap would be a lawful object for a contract. We do
not reach the issue of whether the parties “consented” to a contract within the meaning of
Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, § 2(2) (West 1996), because we find no evidence that Black gave
consideration for this promise as required by Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, § 2(4) (West 1996).
Based on our finding of no sufficient consideration, we find that no contract was created
by the Supervisor’s Manual.
Under Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, § 2(4) (West 1996), “[s]ufficient cause or
consideration” is “essential to the existence of a contract.” In 1890, however, the
Oklahoma legislature modified the common-law “pre-existing duty rule,” to allow
enforcement of contracts supported only by promises to perform pre-existing obligations.
See Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, § 107 (West 1996) (“An existing legal obligation resting on
the promisor . . . is also a good consideration for a promise, to the extent corresponding
4
(...continued)
power to modify prospectively its employees’ alleged handbook-based right to job
security, Baker Oil never exercised this right prior to terminating Black. Specifically,
Baker Oil never modified, either expressly or by implication, its promise (contained in the
Supervisor’s Manual) not to discriminate in terminations on the basis of a physical
handicap. Thus, if we find that the language in the Supervisor’s Manual otherwise vested
Black with a limited contractual right to job security, nothing in Gilmore would preclude
the enforcement of that right against Baker Oil.
- 13 -
with the extent of the obligation, but no further or otherwise.”) (emphasis added).
Oklahoma courts, however, have enforced such contracts exceedingly sparingly, more
often indicating that contracts are unenforceable if they rest solely on pre-existing
obligations for consideration. See e.g. Gragg v. James, 452 P.2d 579, 587 (Okla. 1969)
(“Performance of . . . obligations a party already is legally bound to perform, is not
sufficient consideration to support a contract.”) (emphasis added) (citing Home Owners’
Loan Corp. v. Thornburgh, 106 P.2d 511, 512 (Okla. 1940); Watson v. American
Creosote Works, Inc., 84 P.2d 431, 433, 434 (Okla. 1938)); accord Bowers v. Missouri
State Life Ins. Co., 169 P. 633, 635-36 (Okla. 1917) (per curiam); Maker v. Taft, 139 P.
970, 971 (Okla. 1914) (per curiam); compare Kaiser v. Fadem, 280 P.2d 728, 731 (Okla.
1955) (relying on Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, § 107 to enforce a contract in which the
consideration for a promise was only a moral--but not a legal--obligation to pay for
services previously rendered).
When we sit in diversity, “we must apply the most recent statement of state law by
the state’s highest court.” Wood v. Eli Lilly & Co., 38 F.3d 510, 513 (10th Cir. 1994)
(citation omitted). When Oklahoma’s highest court has said that a pre-existing obligation
cannot constitute consideration for a later promise, notwithstanding this statute, we must
accept that interpretation of Oklahoma law.5
5
Although neither Gragg nor its precedents make reference to Okla. Stat. Ann. tit.
15, § 107 (West 1996) or its predecessor statutes, we presume that the Oklahoma
(continued...)
- 14 -
In the case at bar, Black argues that he supplied two types of consideration in
exchange for Baker Oil’s promise not to terminate him on the basis of physical handicap:
(1) he performed his job satisfactorily during his term of employment; and (2) he
refrained from exercising his option to quit his job during that term. We find that, on the
facts of this case, neither of these actions constitute consideration under Oklahoma law.
First, as discussed supra, Black had an existing legal obligation to perform his
work for Baker Oil in exchange for his salary. Under Gragg v. James, 452 P.2d 579, 587
(Okla. 1969), Black’s mere performance of this obligation could not constitute valid
consideration to support a second contract or a contract modification.
In support of his second argument, Black cites our decision in Williams v.
Maremont Corp., 875 F.2d 1476 (10th Cir. 1989). In Williams, we held that, under
Oklahoma law, an employee’s decision not to quit his job can constitute sufficient
consideration to support an employer’s promise, and thus form an employment contract.
Id. at 1482 (citing Langdon v. Saga Corp., 569 P.2d 524, 527 (Okla. Ct. App. 1976)). We
did not, however, imply that such a decision by the employee would always constitute
valid consideration. Rather, we quoted an Oklahoma court’s statement that “[w]here an
employee at will forgoes options to refuse future performance in reliance or in partial
reliance on articulated personnel policies of the employer, the employer is bound by those
5
(...continued)
Supreme Court has taken that statute into consideration in determining that performing a
pre-existing duty is not sufficient consideration to support a contract in Oklahoma.
- 15 -
policies insofar as they have accrued to an employee for performance rendered while they
were in effect and have not been excluded or modified by another valid contractual
arrangement.” Id. (quoting Langdon, 569 P.2d at 527) (emphasis in Williams). We
emphasized the Langdon court’s requirement of reliance to make it clear that in an action
for enforcement of an alleged implied employment contract under Oklahoma law, the
employee must prove that his decision not to quit, at the time he made that decision, was
based at least in part on his reliance on the employer’s promise. Accord Hinson v.
Cameron, 742 P.2d 549, 556 n.28 (Okla. 1987).
Here, Black has introduced no evidence suggesting any such reliance on Baker
Oil’s promise during the term of his employment. Rather, he bases his claim exclusively
on the mere fact of the printed text of the Supervisor’s Manual, combined with the fact
that he did not quit his job after he acquired knowledge of the promises contained in that
Manual. However, in the absence of evidence that Black continued working for Baker
Oil in reliance on the statement in the Supervisor’s Manual that Baker Oil would not
discriminate on the basis of a physical handicap, Black has failed to establish, under
Oklahoma law, that his continued employment at Baker Oil constituted consideration
sufficient to transform the Supervisor’s Manual into an employment contract. Thus,
Black remained an employee-at-will. Summary judgment in favor of Baker Oil was
therefore proper. See Vitkus v. Beatrice Co., 11 F.3d 1535, 1539 (10th Cir. 1993) (“To
- 16 -
avoid summary judgment, the evidence must be such that a reasonable jury could return a
verdict for the nonmoving party.”).
Because we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the grounds
that no contract was ever formed, we need not reach the issue, also not reached by the
district court, of whether Baker Oil breached any contract that may have been formed.
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the order of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of
Baker Oil on the ground that the record contained insufficient evidence of contract
formation to support Black’s claim under Oklahoma law.
- 17 -