employment contract requiring progressive disciplinary steps before management employees are terminated. According to Appellants, management employees were made aware of the manual’s contents in various ways. See, e.g., Appellants’ Br. 4 (stating that management employees were “notified ... of the manual and the mandatory progressive disciplinary policy contained therein” and that “Amtrak informed them of the substance of PERS16, 1988 Edition”); see also id. at 22; Compl. 111130-32, 53. However, Appellants concede that the manual was not distributed to all management employees. Appellants’ Br. 4; Compl. 1J1123, 26. Thus, Appellants’ claim fails. See Sisco, 689 A.2d at 53; Nickens, 600 A.2d at 817; cf. Swengler v. ITT Corp. Electro-Optical Prods. Div., 993 F.2d 1063, 1070 (4th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). In some situations an employer’s oral
holding enforceable employee manual that was distributed to all employees holding that no implied contract arises from policy manuals which are not generally distributed to employees but which are instead provided only upon request holding that time limits in title vii are not jurisdictional but are instead like statutes of limitations holding that generally punitive damages are not available for a breach of contract holding that internal policy memorandum not generally distributed to employees did not create an implied condition to an employees contract even though that employee had requested an obtained a copy