In Slivinsky v. Watkins-Johnson Co. (1990) 221 Cal. App. 3d 799, the employee signed a job application form acknowledging that if hired she would be employed on an at-will basis, and also signed an employment agreement confirming she would be employed on an at-will basis. ( Id. at pp. 802-803.) After her employment was later terminated as part of a company reduction in work force, she argued that her employment termination violated an implied agreement, based in part on the employer's written personnel policies, that her employment would be terminated only for cause. The court rejected that argument, stating: "Here, . . . the parties intended the application and employee agreement to memorialize their understanding with respect to grounds for termination. Consequently, 'evidence of an implied agreement that contradicts the terms of the written agreement is not admissible. "There cannot be a valid express contract and an implied contract, each embracing the same subject, but requiring different results." ' (Quoting Malmstrom v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. (1986) 187 Cal. App. 3d 299, 316.) Because we hold that the contract is a contract for employment terminable at will, we do not reach the issues regarding whether good cause existed for Slivinsky's termination based on Watkins-Johnson's decision to reduce its work force." ( Slivinsky v. Watkins-Johnson Co., supra, 221 Cal. App. 3d at pp. 805-806.)