DocketNumber: No. CV93 30 83 38 S
Citation Numbers: 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 2870
Judges: PITTMAN, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 3/16/1994
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
The defendant has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on the grounds that the Handbook cannot be read as a matter of law to be a contract of any sort and, for that reason, the plaintiff was an at-will employee of the defendant who was subject to be terminated for any reason that did not otherwise contravene the law or public policy. In support of its motion, the defendant has submitted the Handbook and has filed a memorandum in support of its motion, highlighting various parts of the language in the book that bolsters its position.
The plaintiff opposes summary judgment, arguing that whether the Handbook constitutes a contract reciting the terms of employment is an issue of fact for the trier to decide. The plaintiff also relies upon the language in the Handbook in her attempt to portray the document as a contract that recites the employer's duty to the employee. She has also filed an affidavit in which she states that, under the circumstances in which she was hired and presented with the Handbook, she was led to believe that it was "an agreement" and she relied upon it as such.
In determining whether a motion for summary judgment should be granted, it is not necessary to resolve disputed issues of fact, but merely to determine if a genuine issue of material fact exists. United Oil Company v. Urban Redevelopment Commission,
While it is probably rare that such a handbook or personnel manual constitutes a contract, the question of whether it does so is a question of fact. There is no definitive disclaimer in the Bridgeport Hospital Handbook that negates its being construed as such. See Finley v. Aetna Life Casualty Co.,
The Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.
PATTY JENKINS PITTMAN, JUDGE