Evidence, policy and procedure.

Ruth Heideck appeals a lower court's decision in a suit against her formal employer, Kent General Hospital. Hospital officials dismissed Heideck as an at-will employee. Heideck subsequently filed suit, arguing the hospital's employee booklet constituted an employment contract. Hospital officials maintained Heideck worked at will, and that the booklet only served to explain hospital policy. Hospital officials responded to Heideck's complaint with a motion for summary judgment.

A superior court judge granted the hospital's motion for summary judgment. The court ruled the employee booklet did not constitute a contract. Claiming the court erred in its ruling, Heideck now appeals.

Heideck loses. The Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed the decision of the lower court. The court ruled the hospital did not hire Heideck by written contract or for any specific period of time. Therefore, the court ruled, Heideck could be considered an at-will employee, subject to dismissal without notice.