James Edmond Page, Jr., and Susan Nichols Page v. Carolina Coach Company

667 F.2d 1156, 115 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 4128, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 22885
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 4, 1982
Docket81-1041
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 667 F.2d 1156 (James Edmond Page, Jr., and Susan Nichols Page v. Carolina Coach Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
James Edmond Page, Jr., and Susan Nichols Page v. Carolina Coach Company, 667 F.2d 1156, 115 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 4128, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 22885 (4th Cir. 1982).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

James Page and his wife sued the Carolina Coach Company for breaching an alleged oral contract to employ Page for his lifetime. The district court directed a verdict in favor of the Company, and Page appeals. We affirm, although for reasons other than those relied upon by the district court.

Page started working for the Company in 1961 as a bus driver. In 1971, Page let it be known that he was interested in becoming a dispatcher. The dispatcher’s position was *1157 generally considered more desirable than that of driver because dispatchers worked regular hours, were not away from home overnight, and were entitled to better benefits. However, the drivers were represented by the Amalgamated Transit Union and were subject to a collective bargaining agreement which provided that a driver could be discharged only for just cause. Because dispatchers were part of management, they were not protected by a union contract. In Page’s case this disadvantage was somewhat mitigated by a clause in the Transit Union contract which permitted drivers who became dispatchers to “bump back” to driver at any time without losing either seniority or benefits.

Page was asked by the chief dispatcher if he would like to work as a part-time dispatcher while retaining his full-time job as a driver. Page accepted, and started dispatching on weekends and his days off. In October, 1971, he relinquished his driver position to become a full-time dispatcher at the Company’s State Road, Delaware, terminal. Shortly after this change, Ralph Heres, the Vice-President of Operations, told Page that he had made “a wise move.”

The drivers’ collective bargaining agreement was scheduled to expire in November, 1973. In early 1972, rumors began to circulate that the bump back clause would be eliminated when the current contract expired. To protect his seniority and job security, Page bumped back to driver in February, 1972. Nevertheless, in October, 1972, he again became a dispatcher. Although he was still fearful of losing his bump back rights, Page stated that he was induced to make the change by a Company supervisor. The “inducements” cited by Page were: (1) the regular work hours of the dispatcher position; (2) being home at night; and (3) the dispatcher’s better benefits. As noted earlier, these inducements were simply characteristics of the dispatcher position.

In the spring of 1973, Page and his wife met with Heres. Page requested a transfer to Salisbury, Maryland, which Heres granted. Page’s wife, however, was more concerned with her husband’s job security and benefits. Heres told them that he considered Page to be a good employee with potential who would move up in the Company if he continued to do his job. Neither Page nor his wife could remember Heres stating a specific period of time during which Page could expect to be employed. Following the meeting, Page transferred to Salisbury and assumed his post as a dispatcher.

The drivers’ collective bargaining agreement expired in November, 1973, and a new contract was negotiated and signed on April 1, 1973. As had been rumored, the bump back clause was deleted, but former drivers who had bump back rights under the old contract were given until May 16, 1974, to exercise those rights. After May 16, the rights would automatically terminate.

Page discussed this option with his wife, but not with any representative of the Company. Page decided to remain a dispatcher, and sent a letter informing Heres of his decision.

Page continued to work as a dispatcher at the Salisbury terminal until June 30, 1974, when he suffered a heart attack. For the next two months, he convalesced at home and received disability benefits. On the evening of August 30, 1974, Page drank an ounce of bourbon as directed by his doctor. At about 8:30 p. m., Page called the terminal to find out how the new dispatcher was handling the heavy Labor Day traffic. The dispatcher said that things were hectic, so Page went to the terminal to see if he could be of assistance. Page’s condition apparently led other employees to believe that he was intoxicated, and as a result, he was subsequently discharged for having been on Company property while intoxicated.

Page sued the Company on a multi-count complaint alleging both tort and contractual theories of recovery. The district court entered summary judgment for the Company on all counts except an alleged breach of a lifetime employment contract. At trial, Page attempted to prove that Heres had promised him lifetime employment if he would become a dispatcher, and had induced him to leave his position as driver, *1158 thereby forfeiting his union benefits and protection. The jury was unable to reach a verdict, so a mistrial was declared. The court then reconsidered the evidence and the lifetime contract theory and directed a verdict in favor of the Company. The court reasoned that the purported contract lacked mutuality of obligation because Page was not obligated to work for the Company. Further, the court concluded that the Company was not estopped from denying the contract’s existence because Heres’ statements could not reasonably be interpreted as a promise of lifetime employment. On appeal, Page challenges these conclusions.

The Company does not contend that Page’s discharge was justified by his alleged intoxification, but rather that Page was an employee at will who could be terminated at any time without cause. Page argues that Heres’ statements and his reliance on them created a contract of lifetime employment. Thus, the focal point of this appeal is the nature of Page’s employment relationship with the Company.

Under Maryland law, an employment contract of indefinite duration is an employment at will which can be terminated without cause by either party. Adler v. American Standard Corp., 290 Md. 615, 432 A.2d 464 (1981). A contract for lifetime employment can be created if the employee gives valuable consideration in addition to the services incident to the employment. See C & P Telephone Co. v. Murray, 198 Md. 526, 84 A.2d 870 (1951). For example, such a contract is created when an employee relinquishes a personal injury claim against his employer in exchange for the employer’s promise of a lifetime job. Pullman Co. v. Ray, 201 Md. 268, 94 A.2d 266 (1952). However, the mere relinquishment of a “job, business or profession by one who decides to accept a contract for alleged life employment is but an incident necessary on his part to place himself in a position to accept and perform the contract, and is not consideration for a contract of life employment.” C & P Telephone Co., 198 Md. at 533, 84 A.2d at 873.

The foregoing authorities do not state whether the parties to a lifetime contract must mutually bind themselves to lifetime employment. In accordance with the majority of authorities, Page and the Company agree that the employee need not promise to work for the employer for a lifetime. 1

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Spacesaver Systems, Inc. v. Adam
98 A.3d 264 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2014)
Kunzman v. Enron Corp.
902 F. Supp. 882 (N.D. Iowa, 1995)
Elliott v. Board of Trustees of Montgomery County Community College
655 A.2d 46 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1995)
Marrs v. Marriott Corp.
830 F. Supp. 274 (D. Maryland, 1992)
White v. Roche Biomedical Laboratories, Inc.
807 F. Supp. 1212 (D. South Carolina, 1992)
D'Angelo v. Gardner
819 P.2d 206 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1991)
Windfield v. Groen Division, Dover Corp.
740 F. Supp. 1230 (S.D. Mississippi, 1990)
Clement v. Farmers Insurance Exchange
766 P.2d 768 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1988)
Pratt v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.
675 F. Supp. 991 (D. Maryland, 1987)
James Costantino v. Jaycor
816 F.2d 671 (Fourth Circuit, 1987)
Castiglione v. Johns Hopkins Hospital
517 A.2d 786 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1986)
Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority v. United States
7 Cl. Ct. 297 (Court of Claims, 1985)
Chastain v. Kelly-Springfield Tire Company
733 F.2d 1479 (Eleventh Circuit, 1984)
Chastain v. Kelly-Springfield Tire Co.
733 F.2d 1479 (Eleventh Circuit, 1984)
Adler v. American Standard Corp.
538 F. Supp. 572 (D. Maryland, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
667 F.2d 1156, 115 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 4128, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 22885, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-edmond-page-jr-and-susan-nichols-page-v-carolina-coach-company-ca4-1982.