#FARMERS TELEPHONE MANUAL#
#FARMERS TELEPHONE TRIAL#

766, 259 S.E.2d 812 (1979).Īlthough this Court has recognized exceptions to employment at-will, 3 the doctrine remains in force in South Carolina. The termination of an at-will employee normally does not give rise to a cause of action for breach of contract. 243, 245, 422 S.E.2d 91, 92 (1992) (doctrine of employment at-will in its pure form allows an employer to discharge an employee for good reason, no reason, or bad reason without incurring liability). At-will employment is generally terminable by either party at any time, for any reason or for no reason at all. Pursuant to this doctrine, “a contract for permanent employment, so long as it is satisfactorily performed which is not supported by any consideration other than the obligation or service to be performed on the one hand and wages to be paid on the other, is terminable at the pleasure of either party.” Shealy v. South Carolina has long recognized the doctrine of employment at-will. Even after its issuance, Prescott's supervisors told him “as long as you do your job, keep your nose clean, that you'd have a job at Farmers Telephone.” According to Prescott, he was hired as an employee of definite duration who could only be terminated for cause and, over his twenty-year employment, his status was orally confirmed by supervisors, in spite of any statements to the contrary in employment manuals.įTC denied these allegations, responding the 1988 employee handbook contained a disclaimer which stated all employees are at-will and may be terminated at any time without notice.ĭid the Court of Appeals err by holding the oral statement by Prescott's supervisors created a jury issue as to whether Prescott's status as an at-will employee was altered?

#FARMERS TELEPHONE MANUAL#

2 According to Prescott, FTC issued a new employee manual in 1988.

In this affidavit, Prescott asserted, at the time he was hired, FTC officials told him he would have a job with FTC “as long as job, nose clean.” He stated he interpreted this to mean “that my employment would continue so long as I performed my employment duties and refrained from engaging in misconduct.” Prescott further stated, during the years following his hire, supervisors reiterated the same statement.

#FARMERS TELEPHONE TRIAL#

1 He stated it was his understanding from the employee handbook and through discussions with three supervisors that, “s long as you do your job, keep your nose clean, that you'd have a job at Farmers Telephone right on.” Prescott testified he interpreted “keeping your nose clean” as “don't go out there and get into trouble and do things you're not supposed to be doing.”Īt the hearing on FTC's motion for summary judgment, Prescott presented his affidavit to the trial court. By way of deposition, Prescott testified he received an employee handbook several months after he was hired. In 1992, Prescott was terminated for lying. In March 1972, Prescott was hired by FTC as a lineman. The issue on the writ of certiorari concerns this second ruling. The Court of Appeals also held alleged oral assurances by Prescott's supervisors created a jury issue as to whether Prescott had a contract of employment with FTC requiring termination to be for cause. In relevant part, the Court of Appeals held FTC's employment handbook did not alter Prescott's status as an at-will employee and, thereby, FTC could terminate Prescott without cause. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. The trial court granted FTC summary judgment on all claims except defamation. He also sought specific performance of the employment contract. Prescott alleged various causes of action, including breach of an employment agreement, breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, defamation, intentional interference with an economic relationship, and promissory estoppel. Prescott (Prescott) brought this wrongful discharge action against his former employer, Petitioner Farmers Telephone Cooperative, Inc. The Court granted a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals in Prescott v. Cox, of Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A., of Rock Hill, for amici curiae The South Carolina Chamber of Commerce and The South Carolina Manufacturers Alliance. Morgan, of McNair Law Firm, of Columbia, for amicus curiae South Carolina Telephone Association. Edward Bell, III, of Bell & Moore, of Sumter, for respondent. Jordan, of Schwartz, McLeod, Durant, and Jordan, of Sumter, for petitioner. FARMERS TELEPHONE COOPERATIVE, INC., Petitioner.

Farmers telephone