Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas.

Michael T. WASHINGTON, Appellant

v.

WILLIAMSON PRINTING CORPORATION, Appellee

No. 05-95-00046-CV.

|

Jan. 5, 1996.

Before Justices KINKEADE, OVARD, and MALONEY

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

*1 Michael T. Washington appeals from a take-nothing summary judgment granted in favor of Williamson Printing Corporation. After reviewing the points of error presented, we conclude all dispositive issues are clearly settled in law. Therefore, we issue this memorandum opinion pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 90(a).¹ We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

POINTS OF ERROR

In his first point of error, Washington contends that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on his claim of wrongful discharge. Employment for an indefinite term may be terminated at will and without cause. Sabine Pilot Serv., Inc. v. Hauck, 687 S.W.2d 733, 734 (Tex.1985). The only common-law exception to the employment-at-will doctrine allows recovery when an employee proves that he has been fired for failing to perform an illegal act. Id. at 735. Washington admits that he was employed on an at-will basis, and he has not alleged that he was fired for refusing to perform an illegal act.

In his second point of error, Washington asserts that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on his claim that he was discharged in violation of Williamson Printing’s specified procedures. General company manuals or handbooks, if unaccompanied by an express agreement or written representation regarding procedures for discharge of employees, do not constitute written employment agreements immune from the at-will rule. Hicks v. Baylor Univ. Medical Ctr., 789 S.W.2d 299, 301-02 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1990, writ denied). A disclaimer in an employee handbook, like the one signed by Washington, negates any implication that the handbook places a restriction on the employment-at-will relationship. Federal Express Corp. v. Dutschmann, 846 S.W.2d 282, 283 (Tex.1993).

In his third point of error, Washington argues that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on his claim that he was fired in retaliation for filing a workers’ compensation claim. Washington contends that there is a fact issue concerning whether he violated the two-day call-in rule. We have reviewed the summary judgment evidence and conclude that Washington’s deposition testimony does not raise a fact issue about whether he complied with the call-in rule when he missed work in November 1993. Washington did not controvert Williamson Printing’s explanation that it terminated Washington for violation of the call-in rule. Washington has failed to present any evidence of a causal connection between his termination and his workers’ compensation claim. Texas Division-Tranter, Inc. v. Carrozza, 876 S.W.2d 312, 313-14 (Tex.1994).

DISPOSITION

We conclude that the trial court did not err in granting Williamson Printing’s motion for summary judgment. We overrule each of Washington’s points of error. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

	Footnotes
1		The factual nature of this case, as well as its procedural history, pleadings, and evidence are known to the parties. Therefore, we do not recount these matters.