You Be the Judge
Essay Preview: You Be the Judge
Report this essay
The legal issues concerning the case of Elaine v. Jerry, the Employer, involve breaches of an “Implied-In-Fact Contract” which is an exception to “At-Will Employer” contracts, of which were implied in the “job offer letter” the plaintiff received upon accepting the position. Also, these breaches of contract cover wrongful termination. In addition to the breaches of contact, the plaintiff is also arguing that the termination involved violations of the Title VII act in that the plaintiff was fired and the position was given to a person of a different sex who was less qualified for the position for the same pay rate. This also violates the Equal Pay Act of 1963. But being an “At-Will Employer” the defendant was entitled, by law, to terminate employment without reason to employees who do not have contracts with the company. Lastly, the defendant is accusing the plaintiff of taking slanderous action by accusations that the defendant breached “At-Will Employer” contracts and violated both Fair Employment Practices and Equal Pay Acts.
Plaintiffs Argument:
The plaintiff, Elaine, is arguing that she was wrongfully terminated by her previous employer Jerry, the defendant. She argues that the defendant breached an “Implied-In-Fact Contract” that is one of the few exceptions for an employer to terminate if they are an “At-Will Employer”. The plaintiffs argument is that the job offer she received was an implied contract. The plaintiff argues that job offer promised a “career” with the company and also used the word “salary” which implied that the job would be on a yearly basis. The use of these two words, the plaintiff argues, would satisfy the definition of a contract. The plaintiff argues that this is in direct violation of an acceptable reason for termination of an “At-Will Employer” as the offer letter implies it is an express employment contract.
The plaintiff also argues that her termination violated Title VII, the Fair Employment Practices Act, by terminating her from her position and hiring a person of the opposite gender who was less qualified to fill her position; both by experience and education. She also argues that this violates the Equal Pay Act of 1963 as the new employee was offered the same position and the same salary, despite being less adept for the position.
Lastly, the plaintiff argues that she only held the position for two months and thus did not receive a performance review; therefore had no knowledge whatsoever as to the reason for termination. She argues, that even though the employer is an “At- Will Employer”, she had no instruction or guidance on whether her performance was complete, substantial or inferior during the two months of employment with the defendant.
Defendants Arguments:
Jerry, the defendant and employer argues that there was no breach of contract as he is an “At-Will Employer”. Under this title, the defendant argues that he is protected and is able to terminate any employee without reason. The defendant claims there was no violation of the Employment-at-Will Doctrine and as an “At-Will Employer” he is able to act as such without reason; even if it is inconsistent. Therefore the defendant claims he is not required to provide a performance review to terminate employment under the same doctrine. The terms used within the job offer of “career”