supreme court has "suggested that an employer may be required to comply with contractual provisions such as these." Appellant's Brief at 10. In Streckfus, the employee was the Resident Manager im in a light most favorable to them, we conclude that under the facts alleged in their complaint Eddie was an at-will employee and that the Trails provide no authority to demonstrate that the facts alleged in the complaint are capable of supporting a breach of contract action against the Club. Further, the Trails do not allege or argue that Eddie had a contract with the members of the Executive Committee in their official capacity or the Individual Defendants. Consequently, the trial court did not err by dismissing the Trails' breach of contract claim. See, e.g., Bee Window, 716 N.E.2d at 502 (<HOLDING>). II. Tortious Interference with a Contractual
holding that the trial court should have dismissed the employees breach of contract claim holding that a breach of contract claim was properly dismissed where plaintiff did not identify the contracts allegedly breached recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract holding that trial court erred by dismissing breach of contract claim because appellee made promises to perform specific acts in contract the breach of which would give rise to a breach of contract action holding that if the federal claims are dismissed before trial  the state claims should be dismissed as well