Elsherif v. Mayo Clinic
- Donovan Frank
- 0:18-cv-02998
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 6
In Elsherif v. Mayo Clinic, Judge Frank dismissed Mohamed Elsherif’s breach-of-contract claim against Mayo Clinic with prejudice.
Mohamed Elsherif’s breach-of-contract claim against Mayo Clinic was dismissed with prejudice; the opinion does not state that the other counts were resolved.
What happened
In Elsherif v. Mayo Clinic, Mohamed Elsherif alleged that Mayo Clinic’s employment policies and other agreements created contractual obligations related to his work as a Research Temporary Professional.
Mayo Clinic asked the court to dismiss Count X, the breach-of-contract claim. The policies cited by Elsherif said they were not employment contracts and that either Mayo Clinic or the individual could end the employment relationship at any time.
Judge Donovan W. Frank granted Mayo Clinic’s motion and dismissed Count X with prejudice. The ruling addressed only that claim and motion.
The detailed version
- Elsherif v. Mayo Clinic · No. 0:18-cv-02998
- Donovan Frank
- Apr. 5, 2019
Background
Mohamed Elsherif brought an amended complaint asserting twenty counts against Mayo Clinic and another defendant concerning his work as a Research Temporary Professional in Mayo Clinic’s Research Department. His employment ended on July 7, 2017.
Count X alleged breach of contract against Mayo Clinic. Elsherif claimed that the parties entered into various agreements governing his employment and that Mayo Clinic’s anti-discrimination policy, grievance policy, code of conduct, and other policies formed part of the employment agreement.
Mayo Clinic moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. The court considered the policies referenced in the complaint. Those policies stated that their contents were not intended to create an employment contract, that they could be changed at any time, and that either Mayo Clinic or the individual could end the employment relationship at any time.
Court’s analysis
Applying Minnesota law, the court explained that a breach-of-contract claim requires a valid contract, the plaintiff’s performance of required conditions, and the defendant’s breach. A valid contract also requires an offer, acceptance, consideration, and agreement on its essential terms. The plaintiff must additionally establish damages.
The court concluded that the policy disclaimers prevented Elsherif from claiming that the policies themselves created a contract. The court also found that Elsherif had not alleged enough facts to support his assertion that he and Mayo Clinic entered into an employment contract. The court did not consider additional materials submitted outside the pleadings in deciding the motion, but stated that those materials would not change its conclusion.
Ruling
Judge Donovan W. Frank granted Mayo Clinic’s Motion to Dismiss Count X of the Amended Complaint and dismissed Count X with prejudice. The opinion addresses Count X and does not state a disposition for the other counts.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.