Tomlinson v. NCR Corp., 2014 UT 55, — P.3d —- (Nov. 25, 2014) 

This case involved whether language, and lack of language, in a Corporate Management Policy Manual can create an implied contract that “core” employees could not be terminated without cause and/or certain procedures. One policy in the manual designated “tactical” employees as at-will, but said nothing about core employees. Another policy contained language on performance improvement but did not state employees were at-will. Relying on language in Cabaness v. Thomas, 2010 UT 23, 232 P.3d 486, the Court of Appeals had reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the employer and concluded the lack of language about core employees as well as the performance improvement language raised factual question about at-will status of a core employee such as plaintiff. In reversing the Court of Appeals and finding plaintiff’s employment was at-will, the Supreme Court examined prior cases, distinguished Cabaness, and once again reiterated the strong presumption of at-will employment in Utah.