language cannot rebut this presumption. The Court therefore turns to the specific terms of the agreement. Niehous contends that the agreement’s reference to an annual salary, a year-end bonus, and 15 days vacation (one year’s vacation time), implies that the contract is for a minimum term of one year. Niehous’s argument is based upon the so-called “English Rule,” a previously recognized exception to the at-will doctrine. The English Rule provides that “a hiring at a stated sum per week, month or year, is a definite employment for the period named.” Dallas Hotel Co. v. Lackey, 203 S.W.2d 557, 561 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1947, writ ref'd), quoted in Hamilton v. Segue Software, Inc., 232 F.3d 473, 478 (5th Cir.2000). Hence, Niehous contends that the yearly langu (Tex.App.—El Paso 1998, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, this Court must make an Erie
holding on rehearing that the use of annual salary rates is too indefinite to give rise to an employment contract for a specific term holding that under new york law employment is atwill unless the duration of an employment contract is set forth explicitly holding that language in employee handbook stating that it was not to be considered as creating terms and conditions of an employment contract and that the employment relationship was employment atwill  was sufficiently explicit to preclude the creation of implied contractual obligations as a matter of law holding that use of annual salary rate created fact issue as to whether the employment contract was atwill or for a specific term holding that an atwill employment relationship is contractual and may serve as a predicate contract for a  1981 claim