DocketNumber: No. ED 99621
Citation Numbers: 415 S.W.3d 705
Judges: Ahrens, Norton, Richter
Filed Date: 10/1/2013
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/2/2021
OPINION
Kathy Wallace appeals from the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of St. Francis Medical Center (Respondent). Finding no error, we affirm.
Appellate review of summary judgment is de novo. ITT Commercial Finance Corp. v. Mid-America Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371, 376 (Mo.1993). Summary judgment is proper when there are no genuine issues of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. at 377. A defendant may establish a right to summary judgment by showing undisputed facts that negate one of the essential elements of a plaintiffs claim. Id. at 381.
For her sole point, Wallace asserts that summary judgment was improper because genuine issues of material fact are in dispute. Specifically, Wallace cites conflicting affidavits as to her on-call status and corresponding pay expectation. In sum, Wallace claims that she was the permanent trauma assistant and thus always on call when not at work. Respondent denies that characterization and insists that Wallace was not authorized to be paid as permanently on call; rather, she was on callback (elective) status and paid accordingly. Wallace contends that this factual dispute precludes summary judgment on her breach of contract claim.
Respondent counters that summary judgment was proper because Wallace couldn’t prove an essential element of her claim: the existence of a contract. We must agree that Respondent’s verbal offer of employment in 1983 and its posting of an on-call contact sheet in 2004 are insufficient to create a contractual basis for Wallace’s claim. Policies imposed on at-will employees do not create an enforceable employment contract. Johnson v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 745 S.W.2d 661 (Mo.1988). Neither do phone lists. Moreover, Wallace’s claim was barred by the statute of frauds, which states:
No action shall be brought ... upon any agreement that is not to be performed within one year from the making thereof, unless the agreement upon which the action shall be brought, or some memorandum or not thereof, shall be in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith ...
§ 432.010 RSMo. Even accepting Wallace’s premise that the verbal offer and acceptance in 1983 plus the 2004 on-call posting created a contract, to satisfy the statute of frauds, an employment contract must contain all essential terms, including duration of the employment relationship. McCoy v. Spelman Mem’l Hosp., 845 S.W.2d 727, 730 (Mo.App.1993). No such term existed here. Absent a valid contract, Wallace’s breach of contract claim must fail.
Although the trial court granted summary judgment rather than dismissal, an appellate court will affirm on any theory pleaded and supported by the evidence. Title Partners Agency LLC v. Devisees of M. Sharon Dorsey, 334 S.W.3d 584, 587 (Mo.App.2011). Either way, Missouri law does not recognize a triable case in these facts. The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.