WPC 8#  UN+ %y 0(w@4 1m  0lw 0D 0c'BU: 0J 0TX 0^ 0h  0rr 0| 0` 0 1uv 0d 0@O D3 B U> AQ n 0D4 0Dx D/ B U*B)2DC[ AM3K!v~lvHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLL(9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($ IIIIUIDII{IIӀIzz!x, 3|xI #,e37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)((3$ !      0  (#$  0  (;$2,e  0  .3  0  C:\WPWIN60\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT,  AZ"Arial Regular2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X("$    $$$$'dxd d<  9p`(&Times New Roman*+ ,-C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  ($$   1  ..' dxdP Pd<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d00007Border 1dd* 1C << G !(  +"  //   YYY FILED/X June17,1997CecilCrowson,Jr./AppellateCourtClerk  ) !#d#(   $       //SeeU.S.Const.amends.V,XIV;42U.S.C.1983(1988);seealsoTenn.Const.art.I,8. A !#d#(   $       (/SeeWilliamsv.MHA,slipop.at7(citingGregoryv.Hunt,24F.3d781,787(6thCir.1994)).(PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva ! . (  \RA'\     ` pX\RA'\/7*XXdXXd7*R231A1-j|x`  `@Rߛ @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ WESTERNSECTIONATJACKSONMARLESFLOWERS,   )      )  Plaintiff/Appellee,  )ShelbyCircuitNo.51934T.D.      )VS.      )AppealNo.02A019610CV00240      )MEMPHISHOUSINGAUTHORITY, )      )  Defendant/Appellant. ) @ APPEALFROMTHECIRCUITCOURTOFSHELBYCOUNTY@ ATMEMPHIS,TENNESSEE@ THEHONORABLEWYETHCHANDLER,JUDGE GREGORYL.PERRY Memphis,TennesseeAttorneyforAppellant ALANBRYANTCHAMBERSJEFFA.CROW,JR.CHAMBERS,CROW,DURHAM&HOLTON Memphis,TennesseeAttorneysforAppellee REVERSEDANDREMANDED          ALANE.HIGHERS,J.CONCUR:DAVIDR.FARMER,J.HOLLYKIRBYLILLARD,J.7&mXXdXXd7  Inthisactionforbreachofemploymentcontract,DefendantMemphisHousingAuthority(MHA)appealstwoordersofthetrialcourtenteredinfavorofMHAsformeremployee,Plaintiff/AppelleeMarlesFlowers.Initsfirstorder,thetrialcourtgrantedFlowersmotionforsummaryjudgmentbasedonthecourtsconclusionthatMHAsManualofOperationsconstitutedpartoftheemploymentcontractbetweenthepartiesand,further,thatMHAbreachedthiscontractbyterminatingFlowerswithoutjustcause.Afteramendingthepleadingstoconformtotheproofintherecord,thetrialcourtsinitialorderalsograntedsummaryjudgmenttoFlowersonhisclaimthat,interminatingFlowers,MHAdeprivedhimofaprotectiblepropertyinterestinviolationofhisconstitutionalrighttodueprocess.ThetrialcourtlaterenteredafinalordergrantingFlowerstheremediesofbackpayforaperiodofthreeyears,aswellasreinstatementtohisformerpositionwithMHA.Forthereasonshereinafterstated,wereversethetrialcourtsordersandremandforfurtherproceedings. ForpurposesofFlowersmotionforsummaryjudgment,thepartiesstipulatedtothefollowingfacts.MHAhiredFlowersforamanagementpositioninSeptember1990.MHAsoperationispartiallygovernedbyfederallawandbyfederalrulesandregulationsimplementedbytheUnitedStatesDepartmentofHousingandUrbanDevelopment(HUD).BetweenNovember1991andFebruary1992,HUDsdistrictareaofficeinNashvilleconductedaComprehensiveCoordinatedManagementReviewofMHA.Asaresultofthisreview,HUDissuedareportinMarch1992whichconcludedthatFlowershadbeenimproperlyhired.Basedonthisfinding,HUDinstructedMHAtoterminateFlowersemployment.Asinstructed,MHAterminatedFlowersinApril1992. DuringFlowersemploymentwithMHA,MHAhadineffectanemployeehandbookknownasits ManualofOperations.Aspertinenttothisappeal,theManualsforwardstates:̜8 8 ThisistheofficialManualofOperationsfortheMemphisHousingAuthority.Itspurposeistoarrangeforreadyreferenceareviewofthepolicies,relationships,andproceduresof[MHA].Itisintendedprimarilyasaguideforemployeesinthedischargeoftheirduties.ӜArticleIVoftheManual,entitledAMENDMENTS,providesthat:8 8 TheManualofOperationsandtheByLawsof[MHA]maybeamendedbyanyspecialorregularmeetingoftheBoardofCommissionersbyasimplemajorityofsaidCommissioners,therebeingaquorumpresent.̜Section208oftheManual,entitledEMPLOYMENTANDPERSONNELϜREGULATIONS,providesthat:8 8 AllemploymentandpersonnelproceduresshallberegulatedbytheprovisionshereinafterprovidedinthissectionandelsewhereinthisManual.̜Inthissection,theManuallistsfourreasonsforterminationofservices:resignation,dismissalforjustcause,retirement,andreductioninforce.TheManualalsolistscausesforwhichanemployeemaybesuspended,demoted,orterminated,anditdividesthecausesintotwocategories,majorinfractionsandotherinfractions.Afterlistingexamplesofinfractions,theManualstates:̜8 8 NoneoftheaforementionedMajororOtherInfractionswillbedeemedtopreventthedismissal,demotion,suspension,ordisciplinaryactionofanemployeeforjustcause.JUSTCAUSEshallexistwhen[MHA]hasareasonablebasisfortheactiontakeneventhoughsuchcauseisnotcontainedinthosementionedabove.̜Section304oftheManual,entitledTHEPERSONNELGRIEVANCEPROCEDURE,setsforthaprocedurewherebyemployeesmayfile grievancesconcernedwiththeinterpretationand/orapplicationof[theManual],itsdirectives,procedures,workingconditionsanddiscipline.Finally,Section401oftheManual,entitledPURPOSE,providesthat:̜8 8 ThisManualofOperationscontemplatesthatevery[function]of[MHA]shallbecarriedoutbyitsmembersandemployeesstrictlyinaccordancewithpoliciesandproceduresadoptedby[MHA],andincorporatedintheManual.̛̛̜̜ AfterbeingterminatedbyMHA,FlowersdidnotpursuethepersonnelgrievanceprocedureoutlinedinMHAsManualofOperations;however,thepartiesstipulatedthatFlowerswouldhavebeenterminatedevenifhehadcompletedthegrievanceprocessandthatitwouldhavebeenfutileforhimtodoso. FlowerssubsequentlyfiledacomplaintagainstMHAforbreachofemploymentcontract.Inhiscomplaint,FlowersallegedthatMHAsManualofOperationsconstitutedanemploymentcontractbetweenthepartiesandthatMHAhadbreachedthisemploymentcontractbyterminatingFlowerswithoutjustcause.Flowerslatersoughttoamendhiscomplainttostateacauseofactionforsubstantiveandproceduraldueprocessviolations. 4   ׀Bothpartiesfiledmotionsforsummaryjudgment.ϜThetrialcourtgrantedFlowersmotionastobothclaims,andthisappealfollowed. Onappeal,MHAcontendsthatthetrialcourterredin(1)grantingFlowersmotiontoamendhiscomplaint;(2)grantingFlowersmotionforsummaryjudgment;(3)awardingFlowersbackpayandreinstatement;and(4)denyingMHAsmotionforleavetorenewitsmotionforsummaryjudgment.WeconcludethattheoutcomeofthisappealiscontrolledbythiscourtsrecentdecisioninWilliamsv.MemphisHousingAuthority,No.02A019608CV00190,slipop.at26(Tenn.App.June2,1997),and,thus,wereversethetrialcourtsjudgmentbasedonthereasoningsetforthinthatcase. InWilliamsv.MHA,twoMHAemployeeswereterminatedundersubstantiallysimilarcircumstancesunderwhichFlowerswasterminated.Asinthisappeal,inWilliamsv.MHA,thedispositivequestionwaswhetherMHAsManualofOperationsconstitutedanemploymentagreementwhichcontractuallylimitedMHAsrighttoterminatetheemployees.Answeringthisquestioninthenegative,wereasoned:8 8  BecauseTennesseeadherestothe employeeatwillrule,apresumptionarisesinthisstatethatanemployeeisanemployeeatwill.Davisv.ConnecticutGen.LifeIns.Co.,743F.Supp.1273,1280(M.D.Tenn.1990).Underthiswellestablishedrule,acontractforemploymentforanindefinitetermisconsideredacontractatwillwhichcanbeterminatedbyanemployer(oranemployee)atanytimewithoutcause.Bringlev.MethodistHosp.,701S.W.2d622,625(Tenn.App.1985);accordGravesv.AnchorWireCorp.,692S.W.2d420,422(Tenn.App.1985);Whittakerv.CareMore,Inc.,621S.W.2d395,396(Tenn.App.1981).8 8  Inrecentyears,thecourtsofthisstatehaverecognized,atleastintheory,thatanexceptiontotheatwillrulemayarisewhereanemployerpromulgatesanemployeehandbookwhichconferscertainbenefitsonemployeesorwhichlimitstheemployersrighttoterminateemployees.Inordertobeconsideredpartoftheemploymentcontract,however,thehandbookmustcontainspecificlanguageshowingtheemployersintenttobeboundbythehandbooksprovisions.Smithv.Morris,778S.W.2d857,858(Tenn.App.1988).Unlesstheemployeehandbookcontainsspecificguaranteesorbindingcommitments,thehandbookwillnotconstituteacontract.Whittakerv.CareMore,621S.W.2dat397.Asstatedbyonecourt, thelanguageusedmustbephrasedinbindingterms,interpretedinthecontextoftheentirehandbook,andreadinconjunctionwithanyotherrelevantmaterial,suchasanemploymentapplication.Claibornev.FritoLay,Inc.,718F.Supp.1319,1321(E.D.Tenn.1989).Ourresearchhasrevealedfewinstancesinwhichappellatecourtsofthisstatehaveconcludedthatthelanguageofanemployeehandbookwasbindingonanemployer.SeeWilliamsv.MaremontCorp.,776S.W.2d78(Tenn.App.1988)(holdingthattermsofemployeehandbookwerebindingonemployerwherehandbookprovidedthatemployeeswouldberecalledinorderofseniority);Hambyv.Genesco,Inc.,627S.W.2d373(Tenn.App.1981)(holdingthatemployeehandbooks rollbackprovisionwasbindingonemployerwherehandbookprovidedthat,forsolongasemploymentrelationshipcontinued,handbookcontainedguaranteedpolicies,practices,andproceduresofemployer);seealsoHooksv.Gibson,842S.W.2d625(Tenn.App.1992)(concludingthatemployeehandbookbecamepartofemploymentcontractwherehandbookwaspromulgatedpursuanttoagreementbetweenemployerandstateandemployeeswerethirdpartybeneficiariesofsuchagreement).8  ....8 8  AftercarefullyreviewingthespecificlanguagecontainedinMHAsManualofOperations,weconcludethattheManualsprovisionsareinsufficienttoovercomethepresumptionthat[theEmployees]wereatwillemployees.TheEmployeescontendthattheManualcontainssufficientguaranteestobebindinguponMHAbecausetheManualspecificallycontemplatesthatallMHAfunctions shallbecarriedoutbyitsmembersandemployeesstrictlyinaccordancewiththeManualspoliciesandproceduresϜand,further,becausetheManualstatesthat [a]llemploymentandpersonnelproceduresshallberegulatedbytheManualsprovisions.IfthislanguageevidencesanintentonthepartofMHAtobeboundbytheManualsprovisions,however,suchintentiscontradictedbytheexistenceofaprovisionintheManualgivingMHAsBoardofCommissionerstheauthoritytoamendtheManualatanyspecialorregularBoardmeeting. Anylanguagethatpreservesaunilateralrightonthepartoftheemployertoalterormodifythecontentsof[a]handbookgenerallyprecludesthehandbookfrombeingconsideredpartoftheemploymentcontract.Claibornev.FritoLay,Inc.,718F.Supp.1319,1321(E.D.Tenn.1989);see,e.g.,Smithv.Morris,778S.W.2d857,858(Tenn.App.1988)(handbookslanguageclearlyshowed thatmodificationswereanticipated);Bringlev.MethodistHosp.,701S.W.2d622,624(Tenn.App.1985)(handbookreservedtoemployer righttochangeandabolishpolicies,procedures,rulesandregulations);Gregoryv.Hunt,24F.3d781,786(6thCir.1994)(handbookprovidedthatpolicieswere subjecttochangebymanagement,unilaterallyandwithoutnotice);Davisv.ConnecticutGen.LifeIns.Co.,743F.Supp.1273,1279(M.D.Tenn.1990)(handbookreservedtoemployer righttochangeanyorallsuchpolicies,practicesandproceduresinwholeorinpartatanytime,withorwithoutnotice).Suchlanguageinsteadindicates thatthehandbooksimplyconstitute[s]asetofguidelinesorasourceofinformationforanemployee.Claibornev.FritoLay,718F.Supp.at1321.InthecaseofMHAsManualofOperations,thisconclusionisfurthersupportedbylanguageindicatingthattheManualspurpose isintendedprimarilyasaguideforemployeesinthedischargeoftheirduties.8 8  EveniftheManualofOperationslanguagedemonstratesanintentonthepartofMHAtobeboundbytheManual,wefindnothingintheManualsprovisionswhichwouldaltertheEmployeesstatusasatwillemployees.First,wenotethattheManualdidnotentitletheEmployeestoaspecifictermofemploymentbecausetheManualsprovisionsgavetheEmployeesnoassurancesofemploymentforanydefinitetime.SeeGravesv.AnchorWireCorp.,692S.W.2d420,421(Tenn.App.1985);Whittakerv.CareMore,Inc.,621S.W.2d395,397(Tenn.App.1981);accordDavisv.ConnecticutGen.LifeIns.Co.,743F.Supp.1273,1280(M.D.Tenn.1990)(concludingthat,becauseTennesseestillclingsto employeeatwillrule,presumptionthatemployeeisatwillmustbeovercomebyspecificlanguageguaranteeingdefinitetermofemployment).Moreover,contrarytotheEmployeesargument,thetermsoftheManualdidnotlimitMHAsrighttoterminatetheEmployeesbyrequiringthatanyterminationofservicesbeforoneoftheenumeratedreasons,suchasjustcause.AlthoughtheManuallistedonlyfourreasonsfortermination,includingresignation,dismissalforjustcause,retirement,andreductioninforce,thislistdidnotpurporttobeexclusive.Indeed,theManualsinclusionofreductioninforcetothislistcontemplatesthatcertainbusinessexigenciesmayarisewhichnecessitatedismissingemployeesforreasonsotherthanjustcause.Inthiscase,therefore,wecanfindnolanguagethatunequivocallyovercomesthepresumptionthat[theEmployees]wereatwillemployees.SeeGregoryv.Hunt,24F.3dat787;Davisv.ConnecticutGen.LifeIns.Co.,743F.Supp.at1280.Williamsv.MHA,slipop.at26(footnotesomitted).  InaccordancewithWilliamsv.MHA,weconcludethatthetrialcourterredinruling(1)thatMHAsManualofOperationsconstitutedanemploymentcontractwhichlimitedMHAsrighttoterminateFlowersand(2)thatFlowerswasunlawfullydeprivedofhispropertyrightsinviolationofhisconstitutionalrighttodueprocess. 5   ׀Asaresultofthisholding,wereversethetrialcourtsordergrantingFlowersmotionforsummaryjudgment,aswellasthetrialcourtsfinalordergrantingFlowerstheremediesofbackpayandreinstatement. Thetrialcourtsjudgmentisherebyreversed,andthiscauseisremandedforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion.CostsonappealaretaxedtoFlowers,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.        򀀀        HIGHERS,J.CONCUR:򀀀FARMER,J.򀀀LILLARD,J.