2010 UT 23, 160, 232 P.3d 486. C. Policy 210 137 Tomlinson further argues that NCR was required to follow progressive discipline procedures before it could terminate him, even for cause. In support, he argues that Policy 210, which is titled "Addressing Misconduct and Improving Performance," imposed a contractual obligation on NCR. To create an implied contract, the language of Policy 210 must evidence a " 'manifestation of [NCR's] intent that is communicated to [Tomlinson] and sufficiently definite to operate as a contract provision.)" See Cabaness, 2010 UT 23, ¶ 55, 232 P.3d 486 (quoting Johnson v. Morton Thiokol, Inc., 818 P.2d 997, 1002 (Utah 1991)). If, however, Policy 210 is evidence only of "a practice, not a policy," then Tomlinson's claim f 1 UT App 350, ¶¶ 10-12, 86 P.3d 999 (<HOLDING>). It further provides, "Job performance issues
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 holding that an atwill employee may not be discharged for refusal to violate the law holding that employee guidebook did not create an implied employment contract as it contained a clearlystated boldfaced disclaimer and statement that employment was atwill holding that the plaintiffs express atwill agreement precluded the existence of an implied contract requiring good cause for termination holding as a matter of law that the existence of an expense reimbursement policy alone did not create an implied contract limiting the employers right to terminate an employee atwill