Dillon V. Champion Jogbra
Assignment #4 – Dillon v. Champion Jogbra
Business Employment Law - HRM 510
Dr. Zelphia A. Brown, SPHR, Instructor
Assignment #4 – Dillon V. Champion Jogbra 1. What is the legal issue in this case? Linda Dillon appealed her case against her employer, Champion Jogbra, on the grounds of wrongful termination. The company’s progressive policy for disciplinary action was not applied. Therefore, Dillon makes her claim that her at will status was modified according to the employee handbook and practices. Employee’s handbook should be written clearly and reviewed by legal experts (Walsh, 2010). Champion Jogbra countered that Dillon was an at-will employee and she could be terminated at any time. Dillon also, argues against that the summary of promissory estoppels is incorrect. Champion pointed out that the policies and procedures contained in the manual are for guideline purposes only, not contractual. The policies and procedures are not any part of a contract or a commitment to employees. The courts decided the disclaimer in the handbook could create an implied contract to the employees, even though the disclaimer statements states otherwise. The disciplinary system as outline in the employee handbook was inconsistent with the at-will language relationship, disclaimer statement and the companies progressive discipline policies. Handbooks when originally devised the method to counter labor union efforts, they have “become much more legally binding” as courts have found parts to be, in effect, promises or contracts. As stated by, Allen Weitzman, with Proskauer Rose Law Firm in Florida, “That’s why every word counts,” (SHRM). When issuing employee handbooks employers should ensure every word that is in the handbook count and they are not conflicting in nature.
2. Explain what the implied contract was in the case. In this case the implied contract that Champion Jogbra faulted on was the written statements in the employee handbook that were conflicting with at-will
Business Employment Law - HRM 510
Dr. Zelphia A. Brown, SPHR, Instructor
Assignment #4 – Dillon V. Champion Jogbra 1. What is the legal issue in this case? Linda Dillon appealed her case against her employer, Champion Jogbra, on the grounds of wrongful termination. The company’s progressive policy for disciplinary action was not applied. Therefore, Dillon makes her claim that her at will status was modified according to the employee handbook and practices. Employee’s handbook should be written clearly and reviewed by legal experts (Walsh, 2010). Champion Jogbra countered that Dillon was an at-will employee and she could be terminated at any time. Dillon also, argues against that the summary of promissory estoppels is incorrect. Champion pointed out that the policies and procedures contained in the manual are for guideline purposes only, not contractual. The policies and procedures are not any part of a contract or a commitment to employees. The courts decided the disclaimer in the handbook could create an implied contract to the employees, even though the disclaimer statements states otherwise. The disciplinary system as outline in the employee handbook was inconsistent with the at-will language relationship, disclaimer statement and the companies progressive discipline policies. Handbooks when originally devised the method to counter labor union efforts, they have “become much more legally binding” as courts have found parts to be, in effect, promises or contracts. As stated by, Allen Weitzman, with Proskauer Rose Law Firm in Florida, “That’s why every word counts,” (SHRM). When issuing employee handbooks employers should ensure every word that is in the handbook count and they are not conflicting in nature.
2. Explain what the implied contract was in the case. In this case the implied contract that Champion Jogbra faulted on was the written statements in the employee handbook that were conflicting with at-will