Centrex

1. The exceptions to the employment-at-will doctrine that the attorney would have used to file the lawsuit would have been the implied contract exception to the employment-at-will policy based on the two statements that contradicted each other indicating that “Employees performing jobs where they have access to sensitive or confidential information which could benefit competitors are prohibited from being married to or from having a romantic relationship with individuals employed by competing organizations” while the CEO stated Centrex Electronics employees are responsible for their own off the job behavior. “We are concerned with an employee’s off the job conduct only when it reduces the employee’s ability to perform normal job assignments.” Under the implied contract exception, an employer may not fire an employee "when an implied contract is formed between an employer and employee, even though no express, written instrument regarding the employment relationship exists. Proving the terms of an implied contract is often difficult, and the burden of proof is on the fired employee. Implied employment contracts are most often found when an employer's personnel policies or handbooks indicate that an employee will not be fired except for good cause or specify a process for firing. If the employer fires the employee in violation of an implied employment contract, the employer may be found liable for breach of contract.

2. The confidential information policy adopted by Centrex Electronics in highly competitive industries is very understandable, however in this particular case the execution of the policy was not handled correctly which lead to the wrongful termination of Miller-Canton. Seemingly if Centrex Electronics had just given Miller-Canton her some time to make a decision to either end the relationship with Mike Domzalski, or even if she had decided to continue to work, she could have even resigned and if a decision had not been made it would have been