contract cases. In most cases, plaintiff employee alleges that defendant employer breached an implied contract provision in a handbook or manual by failing to properly follow a specified progressive discipline procedure that is required before he or she may be terminated. See e.g., Zawadowicz v. CVS Corp., 99 F.Supp.2d 518, 534-37 (D.N.J.2000) (analyzing plaintiffs claim that defendant breached an implied contract provision by failing to adhere to the progressive discipline procedures set forth in its Attendance Policy before discharging him); Nicosia v. Wakefern Food Corp., 136 N.J. 401, 643 A.2d 554, 558 (1994) (discussing breach of an implied contract claim in the context of a three-step disciplinary procedure required before termination for cause); Schwartz, 539 A.2d at 749-50 (<HOLDING>). In this case, however, the GFTP set forth in
holding that plaintiffs express contract with the surety company precludes an implied contract with defendant holding that an employment manual with a threestep progressivediscipline procedure gave rise to an implied contract holding that employee handbook did not give rise to implied contract where it stated that it was not a contract and that employment was terminable at will holding that additional consideration is a factor in determining whether there is an implied contract of employment holding that whether a personnel policy manual modifies an employment contract is a question of fact