Code, Inc., a national corporation, was seeking experienced computer programmers to work in its Atlanta office. Pamela Barnett interviewed with Ralph Toddman, the head of Codes computer programming department in Atlanta. Toddman was impressed with Barnetts prior experience and assured her that although Code was a national company, the employees at Code were like a family and looked after one another. Toddman offered Barnett a job at the end of the interview, and Barnett began work on August 12, 2003. Barnett received an updated policy manual from the personnel department every year that she worked for Code. In addition to discussing such things as vacation, salary, and benefits, the policy manual described Codes progressive discipline system.

The system consisted of three steps. First, an employees supervisor must discuss the employees deficiencies with the employee and suggest ways for the employee to improve his or her work performance. Second, the employee must receive written notice of his or her poor performance with suggestions of how the performance can improve. Third, the employee must receive a written warning that if the employees performance does not improve, he or she will be terminated. The policy manual provided that in cases of material misconduct a supervisor had the discretion to decide whether to follow the progressive discipline procedures. The manual also provided that Code had complete discretion to decide who would be discharged in the event of a company layoff.

In 2005, the following language was added to the policy manual: These policies are simply guidelines to management. Code reserves the right to terminate or change them at any time or to elect not to follow them in any case. Nothing in these policies is intended or should be understood as creating a contract of employment or a guarantee of continued employment with Code. Employment at Code remains terminable at will of either the employee or Code at any time for any reason or for no reason. Barnett signed an acknowledgment of receipt of the 2005 policy manual.

Barnett received several good performance reviews during the time she worked at Code. On a few occasions, Toddman discussed with Barnett the importance of arriving at work on time, but no record was kept of the times she was late. In Barnetts 2007 and 2008 performance evaluations, Toddman noted that she should test her programming more carefully. In September 2012, Barnett received an offer to work as a programmer for Lynx, another company in Atlanta. Barnett discussed this offer with Toddman. Toddman persuaded Barnett to remain at Code by suggesting that she might be promoted to programming supervisor when the current supervisor resigned. The supervisor has yet to resign from Code. Barnett was discharged from Code on June 13, 2013. Toddman told Barnett that she was being fired because Code was experiencing a slowdown and that two programmers were being let go in each of Codes twenty offices across the country. She then submitted an application to Lynx, the company that had offered her a job in 2012. Barnett was not hired by Lynx. What claims might Barnett bring against Code? Would she succeed? Are there additional facts you would need to know?