Andrus v State Dept of Transp.doc - Andrus v State Dept of...

This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 4 pages.

Andrus v. State, Dept. of Transp., 128 Wash.App. 895 (2005) 117 P.3d 1152 128 Wash.App. 895 Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2. Scott Ray ANDRUS, Appellant, v. STATE of Washington, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION and the City of Olympia, Respondents. No. 31859–8–II. | Aug. 9, 2005. Synopsis Background: Job applicant, whose oral employment offer with city was revoked, brought action against city for wrongful termination. The Superior Court, Thurston County, Christine A. Pomeroy , J., granted city’s motion for summary judgment. Applicant appealed. Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Quinn–Brintnall , C.J., held that: [1] public policy exception to general rule that employer may discharge at-will employee without cause and without fear of liability did not apply; [2] phone conversation between city employee and applicant did not form an employment contract; [3] revocation of job offer did not entitle applicant to recover reliance damages; and [4] appeal was frivolous. Affirmed. West Headnotes (10) [1] Municipal Corporations Grounds Public Employment Authority to impose adverse action; manner and mode of imposition Public policy exception to general rule that employer may discharge at-will employee without cause and without fear of liability did not apply to city’s revocation of job offer to applicant regarding building inspector position, although city’s municipal code vested power in city manager to appoint and remove all city employees, and although city employee who revoked offer was not city manager; code did not state that city manager’s hiring and firing power was exclusive, and employee who revoked offer was same employee who made initial offer. 1 Cases that cite this headnote [2] Municipal Corporations Appointment or Employment Public Employment Manner and Mode of Selection Phone conversation between city employee and applicant for building inspector position with city did not form an employment contract; “job offer” contained no starting date, salary, or benefit information, and conversation was to be followed by written offer and request for acceptance. Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 33 . 1 Cases that cite this headnote [3] Contracts Certainty as to Subject-Matter Contracts Offer and acceptance in general Enforceable contract requires, among other things, an offer with reasonably certain terms. Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 33 . 4 Cases that cite this headnote [4] Labor and Employment Termination; cause or reason in general Employer can generally discharge an at-will employee without cause and without fear of liability. © 2020 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1
Andrus v. State, Dept. of Transp., 128 Wash.App. 895 (2005) 117 P.3d 1152 [5] Labor and Employment Public policy considerations in general General rule that employer may discharge an at- will employee without cause and without fear of liability will not apply only if the parties have contractually modified the at-will employment relationship or if the firing contravenes public policy or a legislative enactment.

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture