[adthern]

Best advice you could get is talk to an attorney who specializes in employment law. I see what might be a case, but that's general legal principles not specific case law in your jurisdiction.

[JudyKayTee]

Best advice you could get is talk to an attorney who specializes in employment law. I see what might be a case, but thats general legal principles not specific case law in your jurisdiction.

This has been answered in detail by people in the legal profession - where do you see "general legal principles" fitting into this picture?

I'm confused by this entire sentence which makes little sense.

[Alty]

Best advice you could get is talk to an attorney who specializes in employment law. I see what might be a case, but thats general legal principles not specific case law in your jurisdiction.

I'm a bit confused, are you an RN or a lawyer?

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/medica...ml#post2346839

[JudyKayTee]

I'm a bit confused, are you an RN or a lawyer?

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/medica...ml#post2346839

My vote is Nurse based on this (and other) legal advice - https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/crimin...y-469289.html#

[adthern]

I am an RN finishing up law school. So I am not an attorney yet, and certainly not an attorney in whatever jurisdiction the OP is in.

[JudyKayTee]

If you are in law school I don't understand your consistently incorrect legal advice.

I also don't know what this means, asked for clarification and have not received it. "It makes little sense? Well let me explain, there are general legal principals that are general but not followed in every jurisdiction, then each state has its own specific laws that are very different depending on which state the claim is in. So, wh - "

My first clue was your misuse of the word "principal."

In law school I'm sure you are accustomed to defending your position (often just for sport) and so I would like an answer.

Im also surprised that a fledgling Attorney does not know how to read the rules of the site concerning agree or disagree.

[adthern]

Quite correct, I had a typo, I should have said principle and not principal (this semester's agency law cramming coming through I am afraid).

[adthern]

If my answer was not clear enough, I shall try again. All law is based on common law principles. These are the basic foundations, but not the rule of law (i.e.: statutes) in each jurisdiction. Therefore, the person should be talking to an attorney that is admitted to the bar (and familiar with the specific statutes) in that jurisdiction.

If that doesn't answer your question, perhaps you could rephrase it--as I am clearly not understanding what you are looking for?

[JudyKayTee]

We're on the same page - I think the hang up is whether this is employment at will. I don't know of a State which will force an at will employer to retain an employee for even one day.

Of course, you and I care and OP has wandered off.

[adthern]

Actually, most states have a "bad faith" exception to the "at will" rule (burden shifting).

If the employee can show that the termination was for bad faith, as potentially here where the employer terminated the employee in order to save paying a bonus or commission that would be due would generally constitute "bad faith." Of course, that's dependent on each state's statutory scheme.

Yup, wandered off...

Do you have a link regarding the agree/disagree button? The FAQ simply had a general discussion that said if you agree/disagree click that and comment...

[excon]

Actually, most states have a "bad faith" exception to the "at will" rule (burden shifting).

If the employee can show that the termination was for bad faith, as potentially here where the employer terminated the employee in order to save paying a bonus or commission that would be due would generally constitute "bad faith." Of course, thats dependent on each state's statutory scheme.

yup, wandered off....

Hello again, ad:

I like where you wandered to. Let's talk about it since the OP's gone.

In the instant case, the OP thinks his employer fired him on the 89th day to avoid paying un-employment insurance. As I suggested in post #2 above, I don't think there's an 89 day free pass in terms of unemployment, and until proven otherwise, I'm sticking to it.

In ANY case, he was not let go to avoid paying a commission or bonus as you suggested. If one were owed, it would be covered under contract law, and not by some exception to the at will provision. Even IF he was let go to avoid paying the unemployment insurance, the employer made NO representations that he would pay it. Therefore, the OP should have NO expectation that he would.

I'm simply suggesting that an exception to employment "at will" for bad faith, seems to be covered already by contract law - even criminal law.

But, I'm only an exconvict. Never went to law school myself...

excon

[adthern]

I was not looking so much to the unemployment part of his comment, where his focus was, but to his earlier comment stating:

"I am a graduate of a top ranking business school and had significant work experience, yet I was grossly underpaid ($14/hr), compared to past earnings as I was told that I would receive a bonus after tax season which bring that around to $21/hr (which I never received)."

Which I agree would be a contract and be covered by contract law, however it would also provide the requisite bad faith that certain jurisdictions require to over rule the "at will" provision.
See Fortune v. National Cash Register Co. 373 Mass. 96, (1977).

[adthern]

Thanks, I plan on it

[JudyKayTee]

Thanks, I plan on it

And the requirement that he be fingerprinted as part of the overall contract?

There either was a total meeting of the minds or there wasn't. You can't pick and chose which wording and provisions and "understandings" apply.

I find OP breached the contract by failing to be fingerprinted.

Hopefully OP will come back and inform us.

I remember the Fortune case - that referred to a WRITTEN employment contact - something which is not at play here. First the OP has to overcome the lack of a contract; then he has to overcome whether there was a meeting of the minds and an oral contract. Then there's the problem of bad economy - can he prove there were jobs in the $21 range with his qualifications and lack of CPA designation? Or is it going to come down to he took whatever job he could get and kept his fingers crossed? Then, if there was a contract, he didn't meet the terms - fingerprinting.

I think you are looking at this in a very simplistic way and it's NOT a simplistic matter.

Maybe now that OP has more or less been answered this is a good topic for a discussion board, complete with some legal research and citations.

[adthern]

Judy, written or oral a contract is a contract (unless of course the statute of frauds applies).

Also, breach of contract is one issue, but the underlying basis of any contract is the covenent of good faith. I don't believe this is simple at all... straight contract law is simple, you breach or not you have a defense or you don't. Agency which I think is the OP's best argument beyond the contract, is that if the termination was in bad faith then the termination is disallowed by the court and thus (if the bonus was due on day 90) then the employee gets his bonus. I agree that there is a difference in proving whether the contract existed between a written or oral contract, butt hats an issue of fact not of law which at least gets him to the jury. Further, whether the issue of fingerprinting and licensure was part and parcel of the contract would be something for the finder of fact as well, I would look at the other employees at the firm and see if they were terminated for the same failure to be licensed. I think a factfinder would hold that as strong evidence of good/bad faith.

[JudyKayTee]

We're going to go 'round and 'round. I don't think OP can make a convincing argument to a Jury. I think the case you cited is not at point - OP does not need an interpretation of a written contract.

I see no indication (and maybe I'm missing it) that he would be paid a bonus on the 90th day. It thought that that was an open-ended "deal." I also find that the bonus was very nebulous - based on performance? New clients? Whether it rained in April?

As far as fingerprinting being part of the "contract" - it doesn't matter what the employer required of other employees. What matters is the OP's agreement with the employer.

I can work for someone who promises me the moon. That doesn't mean you are entitled to the moon. We each make a separate deal.

I find the initial determination has to be whether there WAS a contract and I don't think you need a Jury to determine that.

We don't even agree whether it's ethical for an Attorney to represent a client who has stated that the sole purpose of retaining that Attorney is to inconvenience or harass another party. I agree with AK; it's unethical. You posted a "disagree" (reddie) so you think it's ethical.

My other thinking is (and I realize you are thinking "jury") - what Attorney is going to take this case on a contingency basis. 1/3 of something like $7 an hour for 89 days and 1/3 of Unemployment benefits for who knows how long?

At any rate - I think you and I have said all that needs to be said. We aren't going to agree and so we have to wait for OP to come back and let us know.