Free Supplement - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

40 North Central Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4429 Facsimile (602) 262-5747 Telephone (602) 262-5311 Troy P. Foster State Bar No. 017229 [email protected] Justin S. Pierce State Bar No. 022646 [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

8 Stu Dvoret, an individual, 9 10 vs. Plaintiff,

No. CV 03-2133 PHX VAM SUPPLEMENTAL CITATIONS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

11 Maricopa Community Colleges, 12 13 14 Defendant.

Pursuant to this Court's April 11, 2006 Order, Defendant Maricopa County

15 Community College District submits the following supplemental citations to demonstrate 16 that, among other reasons, the student handbook is not a contract in light of the fact that it 17 can be unilaterally modified at any time.1 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
1

1.

A.R.S. § 23-1501(2) (2005) (stating that an employee handbook can only be construed as a contract "if that document expresses the intent that it is a contract of employment").

2.

Demasse v. ITT Corporation, 194 Ariz. 500, 506, ¶ 17, 984 P.2d 1138, 1144 (1999) (holding that once an employee manual is found to alter the at-will relationship, "a party may no longer unilaterally modify the terms of that relationship").

3.

Id. at 511, ¶ 35, 984 P.2d at 1149 ("When a promise is contractual, its enforceability should be determined under the law of contracts. We do

The General Student Handbook, at § 2.1(A), expressly states that the District has the right "to change, without notice, any materials, information, curriculum, requirements 28 and regulations." See SOF ¶ 52.
Case 2:03-cv-02133-VAM Document 63 Filed 04/18/2006 Page 1 of 2
1728090.1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4.

not agree that a party to a contract containing a term that proves to be inconvenient, uneconomic, or unpleasant should have the right, like an administrative agency, `to change the rules prospectively through proper procedures.'") (emphasis added.). Id. at 505, ¶ 15, 984 P.2d at 1143 ("A statement is contractual only if it discloses `a promissory intent or [is] one that the employee could reasonably conclude constituted a commitment by the employer. If the statement is merely a description of the employer's present policies . . . it is neither a promise nor a statement that could reasonably be relied upon as a commitment.'") (citation omitted) (emphasis added). DATED this 18th day of April, 2006. LEWIS AND ROCA LLP

s/ Justin S. Pierce Troy P. Foster Justin S. Pierce Attorneys for Defendant

By

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on April 18, 2006, I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrant. Steven L. Evans Steven L. Evans PLC 322 West Roosevelt Street Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1325 Attorneys for Plaintiff /s/ Kathleen A. Topczewski

Case 2:03-cv-02133-VAM

Document 63

2Filed 04/18/2006

Page 2 of 2

1728090.1