The South Carolina Supreme Court has decided that a supervisor's alleged promise that an at-will employee would have a job as long as he "kept his nose clean" did not create a contract of employment requiring termination only for just cause. In Prescott v. Farmers Telephone Cooperative, Inc. (June 1, 1999), the Court decided that the supervisor's statements were too indefinite to alter the employee's at-will status. In ruling for the employer, the Court distinguished its prior decision in King v. PYA/Monarch, Inc., 453 S.E.2d 885 (1995). In that case, PYA/Monarch had issued an employee handbook with a disclaimer confirming that all of its employees could be terminated at will. However, the Court ruled that PYA/Monarch had altered this status and created an employment contract when a supervisor made definite verbal assurances that the company would follow a progressive discipline policy before terminating King.
Like PYA/Monarch, Farmers Telephone had issued Prescott and its other employees a handbook containing a conspicuous disclaimer. The disclaimer stated that all employees served at the will of the company, and could be terminated at any time without notice. However, Prescott alleged that, on several occasions, his supervisors told him "as long as you do your job, keep your nose clean, . . . you'll have a job at Farmers Telephone right on." Prescott interpreted this to mean that his employment would continue so long as he performed his employment duties and refrained from misconduct. Prescott argued that under the King decision, these statements could override the handbook disclaimer.
The Court disagreed. Assuming that the alleged statements were actually made, the Court found that they were not sufficiently explicit to be considered an offer to limit termination to "just cause" situations. According to the Court, a reasonable person in Prescott's position would have construed the statements merely as praise or encouragement, rather than an offer of definite employment.
The Prescott decision should come as welcome news for South Carolina employers, who have found it difficult, if not impossible, to prevent supervisors from making offhand comments related to job security in their efforts to retain valuable employees or praise conscientious workers. Nevertheless, because the King decision is still "good law," employers should continue to train supervisors to avoid referring to progressive discipline guidelines as "mandatory policies" that the company will follow in all circumstances, and to avoid making definite promises of job security.