rights, including a right to a termination hearing, failure to follow the manual in terminating his employment gives rise to a breach-of-contract claim or to a tort claim for wrongful termination. Our supreme court has previously held that provisions contained in an employee handbook, coupled with an employee’s continued service after the issuance of the handbook, modify the traditional employment-at-will doctrine. See Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. v. Campbell, 512 So.2d 725 (Ala.1987). More specifically, when the employer limits its right to terminate an employee by providing a manual outlining specific procedures that must be followed in order to terminate an employee, violation of these procedures gives rise to a breach-of-contract claim. See Ex parte Graham, 702 So.2d 1215 (Ala.1997) (<HOLDING>). In this case, the crucial issue is whether a
holding that the county agencys personnel manual that established a grievance process was sufficient to constitute a unilateral contract of employment failure to follow the manuals procedures gave employee right to assert a breachofcontract claim holding that an employee handbook did not constitute a valid unilateral contract between the employee and employer in the absence of adequate independent consideration holding breachofcontract claim was preempted holding that there was no employment contract where personnel manual provided that after three months an employee became a permanent employee where there was no additional expression as to duration holding that whether a personnel policy manual modifies an employment contract is a question of fact