responsible for the promises it chooses to make to its employees is equally applicable to other terms and conditions of employment and personnel decisions. See, e.g., Marzano v. Computer Science Corp., 91 F.3d 497, 512 (3d Cir.1996) (applying New Jersey law in determining whether memo concerning maternity leave gave rise to enforceable obligation); Kennedy v. Chubb Group of Ins. Cos., 60 F.Supp.2d 384, 399 (D.N.J.1999) (applying New Jersey law in deciding whether employer’s short-week program given contractual force); Barone v. Leukemia Soc. of Am., 42 F.Supp.2d 452, 457 (D.N.J.1998) (applying New Jersey law in noting employee handbook may create binding obligations concerning sick leave or bereavement leave); Giuntoli v. Garvin Guybutler Corp., 726 F.Supp. 494, 508 (S.D.N.Y.1989) (<HOLDING>); Scott v. Pac. Gas and Elec. Co., 11 Cal.4th
holding that plaintiff may proceed with implied contract for bonus claim based on employers written policies course of dealing between parties and oral repre sentations made to plaintiff recognizing that course of dealing may establish limitation of damages as part of parties bargain in fact but finding record was devoid of any evidence to establish a prior course of dealing between parties holding that whether a contract has been modified by subsequent oral agreement or course of dealing is a question of fact for the jury holding that the plaintiff may proceed under a claim for breach of contract and unjust enrichment because the defendant admitted the existence of a contract solely for the purposes of summary judgment holding that the trial court erred by imposing a duty of good faith on seattlefirst in relation to a course of dealing when that course of dealing conflicted with the express terms of the contract