260.423.9551Call
215 East Berry Street
Fort Wayne, IN 46802

Due Process

Wynkoop v. Town of Cedar Lake (Ind. Ct. App. June 29, 2012)

This case involves the often-litigated issue of whether one has a constitutionally protected interest in one’s employment. In this case, the Court found the plaintiff had no constitutionally protected interest such that he was entitled to due process before being terminated.

The majority opinion, written by Judge Bailey, includes a thorough discussion of Indiana and Federal precedent involving due process rights in the employment context. As Judge Bailey notes, in Indiana, employment is either “at-will” (terminable at any time) or for a definite period. A presumption exists that one has no protected interest in at-will employment, but the presumption can be rebutted with evidence that the employment contract contains clear job security provisions. The majority opinion rejected the plaintiff’s claim that his employer’s employee handbook created a protected interest in his employment. The majority opinion discussed numerous provisions of the manual, noting that all provisions must be read together. Although the exact manual discussed by the majority will not be at issue in other cases (unless of course, another case arises involving this same employer), the majority’s discussion provides a useful example of how courts will interpret some general employment rules and provisions.

Chief Judge Robb concurred in result, agreeing that summary judgment was proper, but for an entirely different reason - the employee’s failure to establish the elements of promissory estoppels, an equitable doctrine that bars one from backing out of a promise where another has relied on that promise to his or her detriment. Judge Robb stated: “When an employer drafts and offers an employee handbook containing specific disciplinary and grievance procedures, or makes promises regarding the same, I believe the provisions of the handbook and the promises of the employer should mean something.” Judge Robb thoughtfully explained that the employer provided its employees with a handbook describing disciplinary and grievance procedures:
If the Manual is to mean anything at all, these provisions allowing for progressive discipline and discipline for just cause must be given effect. In an at-will state such as Indiana, an employer is not obligated to furnish to its employees a statement of its employment policies. Having made statements in writing about the terms and conditions of employment, however, it is fundamentally unfair to allow an employer to essentially declare those statements illusory and raise the “employment at will” doctrine as a shield when it is called to task by an employee who can demonstrate detrimental reliance on the employer’s failure to abide by those terms and conditions.
Judge Robb went on to conclude, however, that the employee in this case failed to show that he relied to his detriment on the provisions in the employment handbook. Without detrimental reliance, the employee cannot establish promissory estoppel.

Judge Robb’s concurring opinion should be heeded by any practitioner litigating an employment termination case. Her analysis, although not adopted by the majority in this case, could certainly carry the day before a different panel. Therefore, practitioners should be prepared to discuss not only whether a terminated employee had a protected interest in the employment but also, assuming a protected interest, whether the employee relied to his or her detriment on any promise made by the employer regarding his or her employment.

Legal Disclaimer

The information contained in the Barrett McNagny LLP website is for informational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice on any subject matter. Furthermore, the information contained on our website may not reflect the most current legal developments. You should not act upon this information without consulting legal counsel.

Your transmission and receipt of information on the Barrett McNagny LLP website, or sending an e-mail to one of our attorneys or staff, will not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Barrett McNagny LLP. If you need legal advice and want to establish an attorney-client relationship with Barrett McNagny LLP, please contact one of our attorneys by telephone, email, or other means of communication, and allow the attorney to confirm that the firm does not represent other persons or entities involved in the matter and that the firm is willing to accept representation. Until such confirmation is provided by one of our attorneys, you should not transmit information to us that you consider confidential. If you do provide information to us, and no attorney-client relationship is established, the information will not be considered confidential or privileged, and our receipt of such information will not preclude us from representing another client in a matter adverse to you.

Any links to other websites are not intended to be referrals or endorsements of those sites.

An attorney-client relationship will NOT be formed merely by sending an email to Barrett McNagny, LLP or to any of its attorneys. Please do not send any information specific to your legal needs until you obtain approval from a Barrett McNagny, LLP attorney, as the content of such email will not be considered confidential or privileged. By sending us an email, you confirm your understanding of this notification. If you agree, you may use the e-mail links on this page to contact an attorney.
YesNo