Davis, C.J., concurring, in part, and dissenting, in part:

        In this proceeding, the circuit court granted summary judgment to Charleston Area Medical Center (hereinafter referred to as “CAMC”) after finding no disputed material issues of fact existed to support Ms. Tiernan's claims of retaliatory discharge and breach of employment contract. The majority opinion reversed summary judgment on both theories of liability. As to the retaliatory discharge theory, I believe the circuit court failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to Ms. Tiernan as the nonmoving party.   (See footnote 1)  Consequently, I concur in the majority's decision to reverse summary judgment on the retaliatory discharge theory.   (See footnote 2)  However, I believe the circuit court was correct in granting summary judgment on Ms. Tiernan's breach of employment contract claim. Therefore, for the reasons set out below, I dissent from the majority's decision to reverse summary judgment on the breach of employment contract claim.

        To find disputed material issues of fact on the breach of employment contract claim, the majority opinion had to distort relevant facts. The majority opinion erroneously concluded that “Ms. Tiernan allege[d] that a CAMC management representative stated, at a meeting Ms. Tiernan attended, that 'nurses had every right to speak to newspaper reporters and that he would not retaliate if they [nurses] chose to speak up.'” This rendition of the facts is not supported by the record.

        Ms. Tiernan made no claim that the contractual agreement was made directly with her or other nurses at a meeting. In fact, the record clearly shows that Ms. Tiernan based her contractual agreement on a statement which was reported in an article printed by The Charleston Daily Mail on April 8, 1994.   (See footnote 3)  In that article, a CAMC official was reported as stating that CAMC employees would not be retaliated against for speaking out about CAMC policies. The newspaper article was the only evidence presented by Ms. Tiernan to show an alleged contractual agreement. As a consequence of this single piece of unsubstantiated evidence, the majority opinion holds that material issues of fact were in dispute as to whether CAMC made an agreement with Ms. Tiernan that prevented her termination for voicing her disapproval of CAMC's policies.

        The majority decision on this issue establishes a dangerous precedent. Under the majority opinion, employers can now be contractually bound to their employees for any type of statement allegedly made by them that is reported in newspapers. I do not believe the law of contracts, as developed in Anglo-American jurisprudence, permits an employment agreement to be formed based upon unsubstantiated statements printed in a newspaper. Prior to the decision in this case, our employment contract law had gone no farther than to find that “[a]n employee handbook may form the basis of a unilateral contract if there is a definite promise therein by the employer not to discharge covered employees except for specified reasons.” Syl. pt. 6, Cook, 176 W. Va. 368, 342 S.E.2d 453. The decision in the instant case takes the formation of employment contracts in West Virginia outside the universe of Anglo-American law “to a place where no [reasonable person] has ever gone before.” Star Trek: Episode Introduction monologue.

        In view of the foregoing, I concur in the majority decision regarding Ms. Tiernan's retaliatory discharge claim. However, I respectfully dissent from the majority's decision concerning Ms. Tiernan's breach of employment contract claim. I am authorized to state that Justice Maynard joins me in this separate opinion.