Uploaded March 2025 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
McDonald v. Mobil Coal Producing, Inc.
Wyoming Supreme Court
820 P.2d 986 (1991)
In McDonald versus Mobil coal producing, we'll look at whether an employee handbook can alter an at will employment contract.
Craig McDonald signed an at will employment contract with Mobil. McDonald received an employee handbook that contained a disclaimer that the handbook wasn't an employment contract.
The disclaimer wasn't offset by large print, borders, or capitalization.
The handbook explained that employees didn't need to form a union because Mobil's fair treatment procedure gave employees the ability to have free and open communications with supervisors if issues arose at work. After working at Mobil for ten months, McDonald heard a rumor that a coworker claimed that McDonald had sexually assaulted her. McDonald discussed the rumors with his supervisor.
The supervisor told McDonald to do his job and not worry about the rumors, so McDonald believed that his supervisor would follow the handbook procedures regarding workplace issues.
A few days later, McDonald's supervisor told McDonald that he had a choice, to resign or be fired. McDonald resigned from his position and then filed suit against Mobile for breach of contract.
McDonald claimed that the employee handbook modified his at will employment contract and created an employee relationship in which McDonald could only be fired for cause. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Mobil, finding that the disclaimer in the handbook preserved the at will employment relationship.
McDonald appealed.
The Wyoming Supreme Court reversed the trial court's holding and remanded the case in a case referred to as McDonald one. Mobile filed a petition for rehearing.
The Wyoming Supreme Court granted Mobile's petition.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/mcdonald-v-mobil-coal-producing-inc
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: quimbee.com/cases/mcdonald-v-mobil-coal-producing-inc
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
McDonald v. Mobil Coal Producing, Inc.
Wyoming Supreme Court
820 P.2d 986 (1991)
In McDonald versus Mobil coal producing, we'll look at whether an employee handbook can alter an at will employment contract.
Craig McDonald signed an at will employment contract with Mobil. McDonald received an employee handbook that contained a disclaimer that the handbook wasn't an employment contract.
The disclaimer wasn't offset by large print, borders, or capitalization.
The handbook explained that employees didn't need to form a union because Mobil's fair treatment procedure gave employees the ability to have free and open communications with supervisors if issues arose at work. After working at Mobil for ten months, McDonald heard a rumor that a coworker claimed that McDonald had sexually assaulted her. McDonald discussed the rumors with his supervisor.
The supervisor told McDonald to do his job and not worry about the rumors, so McDonald believed that his supervisor would follow the handbook procedures regarding workplace issues.
A few days later, McDonald's supervisor told McDonald that he had a choice, to resign or be fired. McDonald resigned from his position and then filed suit against Mobile for breach of contract.
McDonald claimed that the employee handbook modified his at will employment contract and created an employee relationship in which McDonald could only be fired for cause. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Mobil, finding that the disclaimer in the handbook preserved the at will employment relationship.
McDonald appealed.
The Wyoming Supreme Court reversed the trial court's holding and remanded the case in a case referred to as McDonald one. Mobile filed a petition for rehearing.
The Wyoming Supreme Court granted Mobile's petition.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/mcdonald-v-mobil-coal-producing-inc
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: quimbee.com/cases/mcdonald-v-mobil-coal-producing-inc
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
