the circumstances surrounding her termination. In Wilder, the Wyoming Supreme Court stated that ‘“[t]o the extent an employee has an employment contract requiring specific reasons for dismissal, then the employer must conduct an adequate investigation or be liable for breach of that contract.’ ” Wilder, 868 P.2d at 222 (quoting Lambert v. Morehouse, 68 Wash.App. 500, 843 P.2d 1116, 1119, review denied, 121 Wash.2d 1022, 854 P.2d 1084 (1993)). But again, as the aforementioned language illustrates, an employee’s claim against her employer for negligent supervision is predicated on the existence of an employment contract that allows dismissal only for cause. Because plaintiff was an at-will employee, she has no claim against defendants for negligent supervision under Wyoming law. See id. (<HOLDING>). As a result, all three of these claims must
holding that an action for specific performance lies in equity holding that an action for the negligence of an architect in the performance of professional services is an action for breach of contract holding that an employees action against her employer for negligent supervision lies not in tort but with an action for breach of contract holding that an action for consequential damages to property whether the action is brought in contract or in tort is an action for injury to property within the threeyear statute of limitations holding in an employees action to recover for injury sustained during work against the employer and other defendants did not state an intentional tort claim against contractor