The Washington Supreme Court recently decided a case in which employees of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation sued their employer for breach of alleged promises made in the employer’s policy manual.  Korslund v. Dyncorp Tri-Cities, Inc., No.75662-7 (Wn. Dec. 22, 2005).  Under previous Washington Supreme Court jurisprudence, breach of statements made in an employee handbook is actionable in court if the statements rise to promises of specific treatment in specific situations.  Korslund affirmed that comments in a policy manual that state that some action “will” be taken can create enforceable expectations on behalf of employees.  The case emphasizes that employers’ policy language should allow for maximum management discretion.

To state a claim for breach of promises of specific treatment in specific situations, an employee must prove three elements: (1) that a statement or statements in an employee manual or handbook amounts to a promise of specific treatment in specific situations, (2) that the employee justifiably relied on the promise, and (3) that the promise was breached.

In Korslund, the plaintiffs claimed breach of alleged promises regarding corrective action against employees who retaliate against other employees for reporting safety or other violations.  The three plaintiffs in Korslund believed they were retaliated against for reporting alleged safety violations, mismanagement, and fraud.  They claimed that their employer took no corrective action against the retaliating employees.

The Washington Supreme Court determined that while the employer’s corrective action provisions allowed for discretion as to what action would be taken against retaliating employees, they allowed no discretion that some action would be taken.  The court concluded that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the employer modified otherwise at-will employment relationships by its policy manual, and reversed the trial court’s order for summary judgment on the breach of contract claim.

The Korslund court also affirmed the trial court’s order for summary judgment in favor of the employer on the employees’ termination in violation of public policy claims.  The plaintiffs failed to satisfy the jeopardy element of their public policy claim, which requires that employees engage in particular conduct that is necessary for the enforcement of a clear public policy.  The court determined that the Energy Reorganization Act provided alternative means of promoting heath and safety policies contained in the Atomic Energy Act.


How Can Dorsey Help?
  • Review employee policy language to allow for maximum management discretion.
  • Update employee policies on an annual basis to comply with state and federal laws.