head has reasonable suspicion that an employee is under the influence of a controlled substance, then the employee will be required to submit to testing. The policy also sets out the bases for searching the property of employees and the city. The policy does not, by its terms, limit drug screens and searches to work place accidents or impairment of employees. The trial court considered the pleadings, the documentary evidence attached, and the briefs of counsel, and it granted summary judgment in favor of the city. Hice appeals and argues to this court, as he did to the trial court, that (1) the city was not justified in terminating his employment because it violated the provisions of the personnel handbook upon which Hice was entitled to rely; (2) the dr 130, 728 S.W.2d 501 (1987) (<HOLDING>). And it is contrary to the dictates of
holding that a public employee who can be discharged only for cause is entitled to at least some informal due process before he can be terminated holding that a disclaimer setting forth policies for general guidance only which stated that it did not create a binding contract and that the employee could be terminated without notice and at will at any time for any reason unambiguously provided that employment was atwill holding that without a provision stating that an employee can be terminated only for cause the atwill doctrine permitted termination in the absence of any reason at all summary judgment and directed verdict in companion cases affirmed holding that an atwill employee can be discharged for any reason or no reason unless employee is discharged for reasons that contravene a clear mandate of public policy holding that although a reason was provided in the termination letter the without cause termination provision was applicable