Michael Merkle was fired from T- Mobile USA, Inc., after he had allegedly been seen drunk at a company conference. Merkle, who had worked for T- Mobile for 11 years, denied being drunk at the event. During a meeting between Merkle and the senior human resource manager, Merkle was simultaneously informed of the allegations against him and fired. When Merkle began employment at T- Mobile, he was given the company handbook, which sets forth T- Mobile's policy of internally investigating all claims of suspected or alleged employee misconduct. Merkle claimed that no internal investigation had been conducted. T- Mobile did not deny the existence of the investigation portion of the handbook or the lack of investigation in this case. The company did, however, contend that there were sufficient disclaimers throughout the handbook, which stated that no portion of the handbook constituted a con-tract. Merkle further asserted that as a result of T- Mobile's investigations of other employees (one employee had actually been drunk) as well as the company's track record for providing warnings, a precedent had been set to provide a warning or investigation before termination. Merkle filed suit against T- Mobile for breach of an implied con-tract of employment. Do you think that T- Mobile's handbook and prior disciplinary actions constitute an implied contract of employment? Why or why not? [Michael Merkle v. T- Mobile USA, Inc., 2008 U. S. Dist. LEXIS 63614.]

-The appropriate legal issues in question, provide a judgment who should win the case?

-Support your decision with an appropriate rule of law?