# Small v. Springs Industries, Inc.

> Supreme Court of South Carolina · June 8, 1987 · 292 S.C. 481

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9599898

## Case

- **Full name:** Kathy L. SMALL, Respondent v. SPRINGS INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of South Carolina
- **Decided:** June 8, 1987
- **Citations:** 292 S.C. 481; 357 S.E.2d 452; 2 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 266; 1987 S.C. LEXIS 272
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Gregory
- **Judges:** Harwell, Ness, Finney, Gregory, Chandler
- **Cited by:** 116 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9599898

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that the jury properly determined: (1) whether the employer's policies and statements constituted a contract, and (2) whether the employer breached by failing to have a reasonable belief that Small committed a "serious offense," which under the policy was sufficient to…
- holding where the jury determined that the employee handbook altered the employee's at-will employment status, "courts will exercise the greatest self-restraint in interfering with the constitutionally mandated process of jury decision"
- stating that under the common law, a trial court should submit to the jury the issue of existence of a contract when its existence is questioned and the evidence either conflicts or admits of more than one inference
- holding that the issue of whether a contract exists should be submitted to the jury when the existence of the contract is in question and the evidence is either conflicting or admits of more than one inference
- finding an employment agreement to be a unilateral contract and the employer's offer to hire the employee in return for specified wages, with the employee's acceptance by performing the work, constituted the terms of the agreement

## Opinion text

Gregory, Justice,
dissenting:
I disagree with the majority that conditions for discharge promulgated in an employee handbook become part of an existing at-will employment contract absent a valid agreement to that effect.
Small presented no evidence that the parties agreed the provisions of the handbook were to become part of her employment contract. Moreover, she did not allege any consideration that would support an agreement to incorporate the terms of the handbook into her existing employment contract. The majority’s characterization of the employment contract as “unilateral” does not dispense with this requirement. Although mutuality of obligation is not an essential element in a unilateral contract, a valuable consideration is necessary. International Shoe Co. v. Herndon, 135 S. C. 138, 133 S. E. 202 (1926). Performance of that which one is already bound to do is not valid consideration. City of Spartanburg v. Spartan Villa, 273 S. C. 1, 253 S. E. (2d) 501 , (1978); Castell v. Stephenson Finance Co., 244 S. C. 45, 135 S. E. (2d) 311 (1964). Mere continuation of employment is not suffi *488 cient consideration to support an agreement altering the terms of an employment contract.
Because Small presented only evidence of an indefinite employment contract that was terminable at will, I would reverse the denial of Springs’ motion for a directed verdict. This conclusion is consistent with the decisions of many courts refusing to find that the provisions of a handbook modify the terms of an employment contract. See e.g., Muller v. Stromberg Carlson Corp., 427 So. (2d) 266 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983); Spero v. Lockwood, Inc., 111 Idaho 74 , 721 P. (2d) 174 (1986); Gates v. Life of Montana Ins. Co., 196 Mont. 178 , 638 P. (2d) 1063 (1982); Sabetay v. Sterling Drug, Inc., 114 A. D. (2d) 6, 497 N. Y. S. (2d) 655 (1986); Walker v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 77 N. C. App. 253, 335 S. E. (2d) 79 (1985), cert. denied, 315 N. C. 597 , 341 S. E. (2d) 39 (1986); Richardson v. Charles Cole Mem. Hosp., 320 Pa. Super. 106 , 466 A. (2d) 1084 (1983); Reynolds Mfg. Co. v. Mendoza, 644 S. W. (2d) 536 (Tex. App. 1982); Larose v. Agway, Inc., 147 Vt. 1 , 508 A. (2d) 1364 (1986); see generally Annot., 33 A. L. R. 4th 120 (1984).
Unfortunately, today’s holding may result in the removal of employee handbooks from the workplace. Also, I fear the immediate effect of today’s holding on other at-will employees who, unlike Small, are satisfactory employees. Will not employee morale suffer because a skilled and efficient employee can be summarily terminated but a bungling and inept employee must receive all the warnings provided in a handbook? In discarding sound principles of contract law, the majority has unsettled existing employment law. In my view, today’s holding, without promoting job security, tends to stifle quality economic growth and development and hinder expanded job opportunities in this State. For these reasons, I would reverse.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9599898. Public record. Not legal advice.