Results 1 to 9 of 9

Hybrid View

  1. #1

    Default Re: Violation of Termination Policy

    I believe the basis of my termination falls under
    Some examples of wrongful termination occur if an employer laid off or fired an employee:
    In violation of a state or Federal discrimination law (1)
    In violation of the employment-related provisions in the Fair Credit Reporting Act or Bankruptcy Act
    In violation of rights granted by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
    In violation of a state voting leave law
    In violation of the employer's own discharge policy
    In breach of an explicit or implied contract of employment or an employer-union collective bargaining agreement (contract law)
    In breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing
    According to the constructive discharge doctrine (2)
    Because the employee would not break a law (public policy violation)
    Under the guise of a false statement of fact
    For jury duty (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure Act)
    Insufficient Cause (3)

    http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com...F#.UabckkAWI2s

    They terminated me in violation of their own discharge policy. It should also be stated that the termination was called a "Poor business decision". A non-terminable offense with the employer based on their policy's.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    24,521

    Default Re: Violation of Termination Policy

    Google, at-will employment. Then, find the law (not a blog on a law board; an actual statute or a case law) that says you cannot be fired in violation of company policy.

    Then come back here and tell us what you find.

  3. #3

    Default Re: Violation of Termination Policy

    To state a claim for breach of contract under Pennsylvania law, a plaintiff must
    allege: (1) the existence of a contract, including its essential terms,(2) a breach of a duty
    imposed by the contract, and (3) resultant damages. Ware v.Rodale Press, Inc., 322 F.3d

    http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documen...s/08D0320P.pdf

    This case would full under an Implied-in--fact contract, which is supported in Pennsylvania.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    CT & IL
    Posts
    5,273

    Default Re: Violation of Termination Policy

    Quote Quoting newberryle19
    View Post
    To state a claim for breach of contract under Pennsylvania law, a plaintiff must
    allege: (1) the existence of a contract, including its essential terms,(2) a breach of a duty
    imposed by the contract, and (3) resultant damages. Ware v.Rodale Press, Inc., 322 F.3d

    http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documen...s/08D0320P.pdf

    This case would full under an Implied-in--fact contract, which is supported in Pennsylvania.
    OP needs FACTS and EVIDENCE to prove this (more than her testimony IMO). But why is being bad at your job reason for being denied benefits?

    Who knows what infraction the OP was involved with (late, no show, who knows) ... the employer may have been justified in this case - I simply have no idea.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Lake Chapala
    Posts
    3,043

    Default Re: Violation of Termination Policy

    The courts have ruled over and over that company policies seldom rise to the level of a contract. In order to prove to the courts that your former employer's policy does rise to the level of a contract, you will need a very good attorney, a lot of money, and a lot of time.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    24,521

    Default Re: Violation of Termination Policy

    The case you quote is specific to that company and does not provide binding case law on everyone else. I'm still waiting for you to provide a link to a law that says, across the board, that terminations in violation of any company within the jurisdiction of the court in question are prohibited.

    I'll wait while you look for one.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Behind a Desk
    Posts
    98,846

    Default Re: Violation of Termination Policy

    I'll assume from the case you mention that this is a Pennsylvania matter. The question of whether employee handbook-type rules can be enforced as contracts is evaluated on a case-by-case basis, but employers are pretty savvy about making sure that handbooks do not create contractual rights. To modify the "at-will" provisions of employment you generally need (a) a contract between yourself and the employer, (b) a collective bargaining agreement (union contract), or (c) to fall under civil service laws that restrict the termination of government employees.

    Quote Quoting Ruzicki v. Catholic Cemeteries, Inc., 416 Pa.Super. 37, 610 A.2d 495 (1992).[/quote
    The appellant's first argument is that it is a jury question whether appellant's status as a terminable at-will employee was procedurally modified by the appellee given the totality of the circumstances. The tenor of appellant's argument is that the progressive discipline provisions in appellee's handbook (1) applied to the appellant and (2) was part of a legally enforceable implied contract.

    We find no merit to appellant's argument. Pennsylvania adheres to the employment at-will presumption, which holds that absent a contract to the contrary, an employee may be discharged for any or no reason. Scott, supra, 376 Pa.Superior Ct. at 94-5, 545 A.2d at 336; Darlington v. General Electric, 350 Pa.Super. 183, 188, 504 A.2d 306, 309 (1986). We have recently held:

    The sine qua non of the presumption is that except in rare instances, discharges will not be reviewed in the judicial forum. The presumption may be overcome by express contract, implied in-fact contract (the parties did not intend it to be at-will), and additional consideration passing from the employee to the employer (that is, if the 42*42 employee bestows a legally sufficient detriment for the benefit of the employer beyond the services for which he was hired, a court may infer that the parties intend to overcome the at-will presumption). An employer has no right to discharge even an at-will employee if the firing would contravene a clear public policy or if it is effected with specific intent to harm the employee ... Several recent decisions have noted that any further erosion of the at-will presumption in Pennsylvania should be effected by the legislature, not the courts.

    Scott, supra, 376 Pa.Superior Ct. at 95, 545 A.2d at 336 (citations omitted). The appellant does not assert that he is covered by an express contract, that additional consideration passed from the appellant to the appellee, that public policy is violated by his termination, or that his employer specifically intended to harm him by dismissing him. He only asserts that the employee handbook creates an implied contract.

    "A handbook is enforceable against an employer if a reasonable person in the employee's position would interpret its provisions as evidencing the employer's intent to supplant the at-will rule." Scott, supra, 376 Pa.Superior Ct. at 97, 545 A.2d at 337; accord Martin v. Capital Cities Media, Inc., 354 Pa.Super. 199, 222, 511 A.2d 830, 841-2 (1986). The handbook, moreover, must contain a clear indication that the employer intended to overcome the at-will presumption. Scott, supra, 376 Pa.Superior Ct. at 97, 545 A.2d at 338; Martin, supra, 354 Pa.Superior Ct. at 222, 511 A.2d at 841-842. We have held that it is for the court to interpret the handbook to discern whether it contains evidence of the employer's intention to be legally bound. Scott, supra, 376 Pa.Superior Ct. at 97, 545 A.2d at 337.

    As noted supra, the handbook contains a section entitled "Purpose" which disclaims any intention on the appellee's part of the handbook modifying the at-will employment relationship. Given the explicit disclaimer stating that the handbook does not effect an employee's at-will status, even assuming that the handbook applies to the appellant, appellant faces an insurmountable burden in arguing that the handbook converts him from an at-will employee to one who can only be fired through the use of progressive discipline as articulated in the handbook. After reviewing appellant's arguments as to why the disclaimer should be discounted, we remain unconvinced that the handbook may be said to have modified the at-will relationship between the appellee and his employees.
    Why do you believe that the policy in your case rises to the level of a contract?

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Similar Threads

  1. Harassment: Wrongful Termination Due to Policy Violation
    By ay14355 in forum Employment and Labor
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-12-2010, 03:59 PM
  2. Getting Fired: Is it Wrongful Termination to be Fired Over a Single Rule Violation
    By buckeye1450 in forum Employment and Labor
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 09-17-2010, 10:37 PM
  3. Termination in Violation of Public Policy
    By stebbinsd in forum Employment and Labor
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-14-2009, 08:34 AM
  4. Getting Fired: Wrongful termination in violation of public policy
    By Sandie in forum Employment and Labor
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-12-2006, 04:39 AM
  5. Getting Fired: Wrongful termination-violation of FMLA?
    By smhohler in forum Employment and Labor
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-24-2005, 10:54 AM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources