Elliott v. Board of Trustees of Montgomery County Community College
Maryland Court of Special Appeals
655 A.2d 46, 104 Md. App. 93 (1995)
- Written by Jennifer Flinn, JD
Facts
James Elliott (plaintiff) was an employee of Montgomery County Community College (defendant). At the time of his hiring in 1979, Elliott was provided a copy of the college’s Policies and Procedures Manual to read. In 1988, Elliott was promoted to a supervisory position and provided his copy of the Policies and Procedures Manual. Also in 1988, the college issued a new Policies and Procedures Manual with a disclaimer in the introduction to the manual stating that the manual did not create an express or implied employment contract. The new Policies and Procedures Manual, distributed college-wide, was accompanied by a two-page memorandum stating that the purpose of the new manual was to make the manual easier to reference. In 1992, Elliott was accused of sexually harassing a female colleague. Elliott was demoted from his position and notified, in writing, that any further disciplinary issue could result in immediate termination. In 1993, Elliott was caught leaving work before the end of his shift on several occasions and terminated by the college in accordance with the Policies and Procedures Manual. No evidence of bad faith on behalf of the college was shown. Elliott filed a lawsuit against the college, alleging a breach of an employment contract. The college filed a motion for summary judgment, pointing to the disclaimer in the 1988 Policies and Procedures Manual. Elliott responded that he had not seen the disclaimer. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the college, and Elliott appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Cathell, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.