1 and 2 answer question

1-5 True Or False with explanatio

Facts: Buttrick was given an employee manual, which contained day-to-day employment policies such as attire as well as a system of progressive discipline. The section entitled "Disciplinary Policy" stated: "It is the policy of Intercity Alarms that no disciplinary action taken against any employee will be arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable or discriminatory." The next paragraph provided, "No company likes to discipline or separate its employees from employment, however, disciplinary action will be taken whenever an employee violates any rule of the company, fails to adhere to any policies and procedures, or fails to uphold the spirit of our corporate objectives _._[T]he severity of the action taken will be in accordance with the following: Verbal Counseling ... Written Counseling ... Suspension." There was no provision for termination in that section. The Manual also stated that the employer may unilaterally modify the Manual's terms, and that the Manual serves only as a guide, not an employment contract. On May 4, 2004, a dispute developed regarding Buttrick's handling of a potential sales lead. The general manager fired Buttrick without any warning or counseling. Buttrick sued Intercity for wrongful termination, arguing that the Manual was an implied contract, and that Intercity had breached the contract because it failed to adhere to its own system of progressive discipline. Buttrick was given the Manual, which contained day-to-day employment policies such as attire as well as a system of progressive discipline. Issue: Did the employee handbook in this case rise to the level of an implied contract? Ruling: Yes. The handbook had a system for progressive discipline that was not used by management in handling Buttrick's employment decisions. It was reasonable for Buttrick to have relied on the language of the handbook. Case Questions: 1. Why did the court overlook the "disclaimer language" in the Manual? Shouldn't that have influenced its analysis? 2. What procedures should Intercity have followed to avoid liability in this situation? 1. If Buttrick were an employee at will, he would have no cause of action for breach of employment contract. 2. If Intercity's Employee Reference Manual is not a binding contract, then Buttrick presumably is not bound to the noncompetition clause, if that is the sole reference to the noncompetition provision. 3. Buttrick should succeed in his breach of employment agreement claim against Intercity, because his employment termination is contrary to public policy. 4. Even if the reasons given to fire Buttrick were that he refused to go to an assigned service call, refused to provide information on potential sales without the promise of additional compensation, and provided false information on his time card, Intercity may not skip the verbal counseling, written counseling and suspension stages of disciplinary conduct. 5. Based on the facts appearing in the case, Buttrick is likely best classified as an independent contractor agent