At-Will Employment And Breach Of Contract

[danielpalos]

Can being demoted (to part-time status and without benefits) be considered a breach of contract?

How about a hypothetical case where the employer reduces the benefits, due to lack of hours, and wants the employee to voluntarily agree to the change in status and the employee refuses to agree to that request.

I understand that an employer can simply terminate the employee, at-will, in an at-will employment state any reason or no reason.

If the employer has no written policy concerning benefits for part-time employees, can an employee regard that demotion as a breach of contract and just cause for termination of employment?

How does good faith and fair dealing interact in this type of situation?

[panther10758]

Are saying there is a contract? Without a contract how can there be a breach? A few years ago I ran into something similar. Full time (which carried benefits) was 32 hours or more per week. They changed that to 35 but did not raise the hours of those working full time at old standard. So those working 32 - 35 hours did not have an hours increase and thus lost their benefits. Many were unhappy and there was no legal arguement from any source as dozens were effected

[danielpalos]

How about a hypothetical case where a private employer reduces the benefits of a private employee on his own initiative, due to lack of hours, and wants the employee to voluntarily agree to the change in status and the employee refuses to agree to that request.

Can the employee consider that a fundamental breach or material breach of contract?

Can you compare and contrast a fundamental breach of contract and a material breach of contract given that situation?

In your case, how was the state able to circumvent Article 1, Section 10 of the US Constitution regarding the denial and disparagement of the power of states to impair in the Obligation of Contracts? I would have thought that all contracts subject to new legislation would have to be "grandfathered in" or could only apply to new contracts established after the legislation was passed (i.e. new hires or change of employment).

[aaron]

If you want to discuss hypothetical cases, or get into another of your convoluted threads about what you think employment law should be, this is not the forum for it.

[danielpalos]

Are you recommending I post this in the legal threads for an unconvoluted discussion of this type of legal issue?

[aaron]

I am requesting that you abide by the forum rules, and respect other forum members.

[danielpalos]

I have not found any rationale for our current regime of unemployment compensation, other than there is no judicial oversight over what our elected representatives to government write on blank pieces of paper.


As a simple matter of principle and common sense, at-will employment should be the presumption of any EDD office in any at-will employment state.

If I am an employee, and you hire me at-will, and then fire me at-will; why would EDD claim that the employment relationship was for-cause, and create a potential liability for me (i.e. a lack of unemployment compensation in money based markets)?

Consider that we both agreed to a social contract that resulted in employment, under at-will terms. I did not agree to a for-cause employment agreement and neither did you; as a form of social contract that results in employment, it was at the will of either party upon proper notice.

Let's consider the actions of any given EDD office as is currently practiced. For cause-stipulations are assumed since they require, for-cause (just-cause) employment stipulations.

How can I prove for-cause employment stipulations, if I only agreed to an employment relationship that was at-will. Let's further assume that one of the reason's that I agreed to at-will employment, was specifically so I would not need to provide for-cause criteria to the EDD office when I become "naturally" unemployed.

The Ninth Amendment applies and Section 10 of our federal Constitution specifically denies and disparages the right of the several States, to impair in the obligation of contracts (that may result in employment).
__________________
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer or qualified to practice law in any state. I only argue legal theory and politics, from an economics perspective.

[danielpalos]

California Insurance Code: 606.5. (a) Whether an individual or entity is the employer of specific employees shall be determined under common law rules applicable in determining the employer-employee relationship, except as provided in subdivisions (b) and (c).

Source: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/di...0&file=601-611

California Labor Code: 2922. An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

As a simple matter of principle and common sense, at-will employment should be the presumption of any EDD office in any at-will employment state.

If I am an employee, and you hire me at-will, and then fire me at-will; why would EDD claim that the employment relationship was for-cause, and create a liability for me (i.e. a lack of unemployment compensation in money based markets).

Consider that we both agreed to a social contract that resulted in employment, under at-will terms. I did not agree to a for-cause employment agreement and neither did you; as a form of social contract that results in employment, it was at the will of either party upon proper notice.

Let's consider the actions of any given EDD office as is currently practiced. For cause-stipulations are assumed since they require, for-cause (just-cause) employment stipulations.

How can I prove for-cause employment stipulations, if I only agreed to an employment relationship that was at-will. Let's further assume that one of the reason's that I agreed to at-will employment, was specifically so I would not need to provide for-cause criteria to the EDD office when I become "naturally" unemployed.

The Ninth Amendment applies and Section 10 of our federal Constitution specifically denies and disparages the right of the several States, to impair in obligation of contracts (that may result in employment).


What about the opposite point of view?

A major distinction is whether an employee is considered to be employed on a "for cause" or "at-will" basis. Generally, a "for cause" employment agreement allows the employer:

* To terminate the employee for any reason so long as they pay a negotiated severance.
* To terminate the employee for good cause reasons, so long as the employee is first given a warning notice when appropriate.

These agreements should only be used when negotiated for by the employee.

Source: Employment Agreement (For Cause)

If EDD is requiring for-cause stipulations, why shouldn't the employer be required "To terminate the employee for any reason so long as they pay a negotiated severance."?

Or, employ for-cause criteria "so long as the employee is first given a warning notice when appropriate." in order to discharge the employee for-cause as stipulated by EDD?

[danielpalos]

California Insurance Code: 606.5. (a) Whether an individual or entity is the employer of specific employees shall be determined under common law rules applicable in determining the employer-employee relationship, except as provided in subdivisions (b) and (c).

Source: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/di...0&file=601-611

California Labor Code: 2922. An employment, having no specified term, may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. Employment for a specified term means an employment for a period greater than one month.

As a simple matter of principle and common sense, at-will employment should be the presumption of any EDD office in any at-will employment state.

If I am an employee, and you hire me at-will, and then fire me at-will; why would EDD claim that the employment relationship was for-cause, and create a liability for me (i.e. a lack of unemployment compensation in money based markets).

Consider that we both agreed to a social contract that resulted in employment, under at-will terms. I did not agree to a for-cause employment agreement and neither did you; as a form of social contract that results in employment, it was at the will of either party upon proper notice.

Let's consider the actions of any given EDD office as is currently practiced. For cause-stipulations are assumed since they require, for-cause (just-cause) employment stipulations.

How can I prove for-cause employment stipulations, if I only agreed to an employment relationship that was at-will. Let's further assume that one of the reason's that I agreed to at-will employment, was specifically so I would not need to provide for-cause criteria to the EDD office when I become "naturally" unemployed.

The Ninth Amendment applies and Section 10 of our federal Constitution specifically denies and disparages the right of the several States, to impair in obligation of contracts (that may result in employment).


What about the opposite point of view?

A major distinction is whether an employee is considered to be employed on a "for cause" or "at-will" basis. Generally, a "for cause" employment agreement allows the employer:

* To terminate the employee for any reason so long as they pay a negotiated severance.
* To terminate the employee for good cause reasons, so long as the employee is first given a warning notice when appropriate.

These agreements should only be used when negotiated for by the employee.

Source: Employment Agreement (For Cause)

If EDD is requiring for-cause stipulations, why shouldn't the employer be required "To terminate the employee for any reason so long as they pay a negotiated severance."?

Or, employ for-cause criteria "so long as the employee is first given a warning notice when appropriate." in order to discharge the employee for-cause as stipulated by EDD?