A loss$-$prevention manager employed by a general store was terminated for pursuing a shoplifter out$-$side of the store and throwing the shoplifter$$s phone onto the roof of the store. The manager filed a com$-$plaint in superior court, claiming breach of contract and wrongful termination. He claimed that the store$$s loss$-$prevention policies and procedures were part of his employment contract and that the store breached those contractual provisions when it termi$-$nated his employment without notice.$$discovering too late that the laws on which they relied lacked the teeth to properly protect them. The federal Sarbanes$-$Oxley Act of $2002$ makes such retaliation against those reporting a federal crime itself a crime that can result in the imprisonment of corporate officers.$$company argued that$$The store moved for summary judgment. The its loss$-$prevention policy$$manual was not a binding contract and that, even if it were, the store$$s actions did not violate company policy. The superior court agreed that the company$$s policy manual was not a contract and that the man$-$ager$$s employment was, therefore, terminable at will. Accordingly, the court granted the motion for sum$-$mary judgment and dismissed the manager$$s claims. The manager appealed. Do you think the company$$s loss$-$prevention policy manual created a binding contract that would support the employee$$s breach of contract claim? What facts, above, suggest that the policy couldn$$t have covered the plaintiff$$s conduct? $[$See Becker v$.$ Fred Meyer Stores, Inc., $335$ P$\mathrm{.}3$d $1110($Alaska $2014).]$