Courts look at the wording of job offers
August 25, 2008 by Sam NarisiPosted in: In This Week's E-Newsletter, Latest News & Views, Law, Salary negotiations
Look out: Your job offers or contracts might be inadvertently binding your company to certain terms and conditions.
That’s what happened to a company in one recent case.
An employee was hired and resigned a few months later, after a dispute about the employer’s diversity program. He sued to get his pay for the rest of the year, claiming he was under a contract which stated he was owed a full year’s salary.
The company’s response: The man was an at-will employee, and paying for a full year when he only worked a few months would be ridiculous.
The judge sided with the employee and ordered the company to pay up. Why? The job offer letter indicated his salary would be paid in “12 monthly installments.” According to the judge, that was “a clear indication” the company intended to hire him for a year.
It was just one simple phrase, but it made a huge difference.
Cite: Herndon-Brown v. Riverdale Country School
Tags: at-will, contract, Hiring, offer letters, salary
August 29th, 2008 at 11:40 am
But, since the EMPLOYEE resigned, and was not let go, why did he not thus FORFEIT his claim to the rest of his 12 months of salary? Sounds like bad law.
September 2nd, 2008 at 4:04 pm
We always include a disclaimer: This letter is not an employment contract, but rather a written confirmation of the discussions we have had concerning your employment with XXX. This letter should not be construed as a guarantee of employment for any length of time or any form of a binding employment contract. At all times during your employment with XXX your employment is at will.
August 28th, 2009 at 11:52 am
We take the same approach as R.B. with the use of a disclaimer. Our disclaimer is located on the application right above the applicant’s signature. Also, it included in our company handbook; which the new employee reads and signs off on during orientation. A letter of job offer is not used.
I don’t understand the logic of the ruling since the employee resigned and hence he broke the so called contact/agreement.