appropriate and necessary, in its judgment, based on the seriousness of the issue;” “[s]erious performance management measures may be taken without exhausting less serious measures depending on the circumstances;” and the County “may terminate an employee immediately for any reason, without performance counseling”). Because the Manual clearly and explicitly states that Defendants need not proceed through all of the steps of performance counseling and may proceed directly to termination, there is no genuine issue of material fact that procedural requirements were not met with respect to Plaintiffs termination. Accordingly, Plaintiffs claim of promissory estoppel based on Defendants’ failure to follow the Manual’s guidelines fails as a matter of law. See Sample, 2012 WL 1247223, at *12 (<HOLDING>). C. Section 1983 Claims Plaintiff brings three
holding that a promissory estoppel claim failed where the plaintiff provided no evidence that the employer defendant did not follow the employment manuals requirements holding that the plaintiff failed to allege breach of a valid and enforceable contract but stated a claim for promissory estoppel holding that unenforceable promises cannot form the basis for a claim of promissory estoppel holding that the absence of a binding agreement does not defeat a promissory estoppel claim holding that promissory estoppel is applicable only in the absence of an enforceable contract