This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P, was hired by D as an Engineering Section Head. There was no written employment contract. P began work in mid-November 1969. Sometime in December, P received and read the personnel manual distributed by D. In 1976, P was promoted, and in January 1977 he was promoted again, this latter time to Group Leader for the Civil Engineering, the Piping Design, the Plant Layout, and the Standards and Systems Sections. In March 1978, P was directed to write a report to his supervisors about piping problems in one of D's buildings. This report was written and submitted on April 5, 1978. On May 3, 1978, stating that the General Manager of D's Corporate Engineering Department had lost confidence in him, P's supervisors requested his resignation. Following this, by letter dated May 22, 1978, P was formally asked for his resignation, to be effective July 15, 1978. P refused to resign. Two weeks later D requested P's resignation and told him he would be fired if he did not resign. P declined and was fired in July. P filed a complaint alleging breach of contract based on the express and implied promises in D's employment manual created a contract under which he could not be fired at will, but rather only for cause, and then only after the procedures outlined in the manual were followed. P contends that he was not dismissed for good cause and that his firing was a breach of contract. The trial court held that the employment manual was not contractually valid. It found that the personnel policy manual did not contain any clear and definite expression and, further, that there was no such additional consideration to validate the change in terms of the at will contract. The Appellate Division affirmed. It viewed P's claim as one for a 'permanent or lifetime employment,' and found that the policy manual did not specifically set forth the term, work, hours, or duties of the employment and 'appear[ed] to be a unilateral expression of company policies and procedures . . . not bargained for by the parties,' this last reference being similar to the notion, relied on by the trial court, that additional consideration was required. It found that the 'promulgation and circulation of the personnel policy manual did not give P any enforceable contractual rights.' This court granted certification.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.