- Nov 14, 2020
- 29
- 2
- My Characters
- Elisha Wesler
Username: Royal_Vulpes
Plaintiff Lucifer McCalister
Defendant Premium Deluxe Motorsport
What kind of appeal is this? Appeal
Link to Original Docket https://nonstoprp.net/index.php?threads/lucifer-mccalister-vs-pdm-premium-deluxe-motorsport-labor.31139/
Case Number 23-C1001
Reasons Detailed Below I. Error in Inference - When this trial was presented before the District Court, we as the plaintiff asserted that the exception of "implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing" to the "at-will employment" laws, that are accepted and practiced in law, was sufficient grounds to file the tort/claim against the defendant. The Cornell Law, under the employment-at-will doctrine, states: "Exceptions
Even if an employment agreement contains an at-will provision, there are certain reasons as to why termination could still be wrongful. These exceptions will typically vary by state.
Public Policy Exception
The public policy exception bars an employer from terminating employees in violation of well-established public policy of the state. As an example, in many states an employee may not be terminated for filing a workers' compensation claim after an on-the-job injury.
Many states do not allow employers to terminate employees for refusal to violate the law at the employer's request. Criteria for what violates public policy in a particular state varies from state to state.
Implied Contract Exception
The implied contract exception means that an employee may have an expectation of a fixed term or even indefinite employment based on something the supervisor has done. This can take the form of employer's statements, an employer’s practice of only firing employees for cause, or an assertion in the employee handbook that specific termination procedures will be followed.
Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
Some states recognize an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in employment relationships. Under this exception, an employer typically may not terminate an employee in bad faith or terminate an employee when the termination is motivated by malice."
- https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/employment-at-will_doctrine
We as the plaintiff noted what the defendant had stated, and provided evidence backing what was stated. The lower court ruled stating "The 'At Will Employment' section of the Business Bureau is recognized as law by this, as we do not have a centralized law library and this is an official legal document approved by the Chief Justice of San Andreas." With that said, we assert that this was the lower court stating that it was not willing to establish case precedent that would allow changes and additions to the current "at-will employment" laws.
In addition, the lower court continued by stating from the regulation "This means that in the absence of a contractual agreement between an employer and an employee establishing a definite term of employment, the relationship is presumed to be terminable at the will of either party without regard to the quality of performance of either party." What the lower court cited was not what was being claimed. It was a breach of trust as cited in the complaint and in evidence, which in accordance to the exceptions to "at-will employment" would fall under the "Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing" or simply referred to as "Good Faith."
When reviewing "Good Faith," Cornell Law School stated, "Good faith is a broad term that’s used to encompass honest dealing. Depending on the exact setting, good faith may require an honest belief or purpose, faithful performance of duties, observance of fair dealing standards, or an absence of fraudulent intent.
A fiduciary relationship creates a duty of good faith between the agent and the principal. The breach of this duty of good faith can lead to liability. Failure to act in good faith is known as bad faith and is generally considered to be a level of culpability greater than negligence."
- https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/good_faith
In the complaint, the defendant had noted that the plaintiff had caused an issue of trust, which applied in legal terms means that there was an act of "bad faith." Cornell Law states, "Bad faith refers to dishonesty or fraud in a transaction. Depending on the exact setting, bad faith may mean a dishonest belief or purpose, untrustworthy performance of duties, neglect of fair dealing standards, or fraudulent intent. It is often related to a breach of the obligation inherent in all contracts to deal with the other parties in good faith and with fair dealing."
- https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/bad_faith
It was also apparent in the exceptions above that the "Implied Contract Exception" that states "an employee may have an expectation of a fixed term or even indefinite employment based on something the supervisor has done. This can take the form of employer's statements, an employer’s practice of only firing employees for cause, or an assertion in the employee handbook that specific termination procedures will be followed." This means that if there are employee handbooks, business conduct, or procedures in place, this also is an exception to the rule. Overall, if an employee is told they were in violation of such reasoning, specific incidents recorded, and steps to enact disciplinary actions must be in place.
In Mers v. Dispatch Printing Co. (1985), it states "Contracts — Employer and employee — Oral employment-at-will agreements — Terminable for any reason not contrary to law — Circumstances to be considered in determining terms of discharge — Promissory estoppel applicable, when... 2. The facts and circumstances surrounding an oral employment-at-will agreement, including the character of the employment, custom, the course of dealing between the parties, company policy, or any other fact which may illuminate the question, can be considered by the trier of fact in order to determine the agreement's explicit and implicit terms concerning discharge."
As stated by Cornell Law for "Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing" or "Good Faith" and in the "Implied Contract Exception," when reviewing what the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled on, it held that the doctrine of promissory estoppel could modify employment at will relationships if three conditions were met. First, the employer must make a promise that the employer should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance on the part of the employee. The Supreme Court recognized that in the case there was an implied contract and promissory estoppel (the doctrine that a party may recover on the basis of a promise made when the party's reliance on that promise was reasonable, and the party attempting to recover detrimentally relied on the promise).
The basis of promissory estoppel can be further compounded by the US Supreme Court's Ruling in Cohen v. Cowles Media Co. 501 US 663 (1991)(https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/501/663/), in which the Supreme Court recognized promissory estoppel as a "state law doctrine creating legal obligations never explicitly assumed by the parties that are enforceable."
II. Purpose of the complaint - The purpose of this case was to aid in the establishment of case precedent to allow limitations as to how an employer terminates employees within a guideline of the "at-will" status and not utilize the broad and easily abused doctrine this state has at this current time. This case would allow the State to build off of this case and mold the "at-will" regulations around the particulars of what this case would entail. This case would further allow that should employers fire their employee based on a violation of trust or violations of business "conduct" eliminates a mere termination without justification or proof of actual malice. This case would also establish promissory estoppel when employers provide such rules, codes of conduct and employee handbooks.
I implore the Supreme Court to reconsider this case and let it be heard as this case would aid in establishing fair employment laws and limit what employers can use as means to dismiss, terminate, and/or suspend their employees when implied contracts, promissory estoppels, and/or good faith is utilized.
Please list the restitution sought for this appeal I. Have this case ruling for dismissal to be overturned
II. Have this case remanded back to the District Court
Attorney Signature Elisha Wesler
Bar Number 23-0106
Plaintiff Lucifer McCalister
Defendant Premium Deluxe Motorsport
What kind of appeal is this? Appeal
Link to Original Docket https://nonstoprp.net/index.php?threads/lucifer-mccalister-vs-pdm-premium-deluxe-motorsport-labor.31139/
Case Number 23-C1001
Reasons Detailed Below I. Error in Inference - When this trial was presented before the District Court, we as the plaintiff asserted that the exception of "implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing" to the "at-will employment" laws, that are accepted and practiced in law, was sufficient grounds to file the tort/claim against the defendant. The Cornell Law, under the employment-at-will doctrine, states: "Exceptions
Even if an employment agreement contains an at-will provision, there are certain reasons as to why termination could still be wrongful. These exceptions will typically vary by state.
Public Policy Exception
The public policy exception bars an employer from terminating employees in violation of well-established public policy of the state. As an example, in many states an employee may not be terminated for filing a workers' compensation claim after an on-the-job injury.
Many states do not allow employers to terminate employees for refusal to violate the law at the employer's request. Criteria for what violates public policy in a particular state varies from state to state.
Implied Contract Exception
The implied contract exception means that an employee may have an expectation of a fixed term or even indefinite employment based on something the supervisor has done. This can take the form of employer's statements, an employer’s practice of only firing employees for cause, or an assertion in the employee handbook that specific termination procedures will be followed.
Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
Some states recognize an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in employment relationships. Under this exception, an employer typically may not terminate an employee in bad faith or terminate an employee when the termination is motivated by malice."
- https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/employment-at-will_doctrine
We as the plaintiff noted what the defendant had stated, and provided evidence backing what was stated. The lower court ruled stating "The 'At Will Employment' section of the Business Bureau is recognized as law by this, as we do not have a centralized law library and this is an official legal document approved by the Chief Justice of San Andreas." With that said, we assert that this was the lower court stating that it was not willing to establish case precedent that would allow changes and additions to the current "at-will employment" laws.
In addition, the lower court continued by stating from the regulation "This means that in the absence of a contractual agreement between an employer and an employee establishing a definite term of employment, the relationship is presumed to be terminable at the will of either party without regard to the quality of performance of either party." What the lower court cited was not what was being claimed. It was a breach of trust as cited in the complaint and in evidence, which in accordance to the exceptions to "at-will employment" would fall under the "Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing" or simply referred to as "Good Faith."
When reviewing "Good Faith," Cornell Law School stated, "Good faith is a broad term that’s used to encompass honest dealing. Depending on the exact setting, good faith may require an honest belief or purpose, faithful performance of duties, observance of fair dealing standards, or an absence of fraudulent intent.
A fiduciary relationship creates a duty of good faith between the agent and the principal. The breach of this duty of good faith can lead to liability. Failure to act in good faith is known as bad faith and is generally considered to be a level of culpability greater than negligence."
- https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/good_faith
In the complaint, the defendant had noted that the plaintiff had caused an issue of trust, which applied in legal terms means that there was an act of "bad faith." Cornell Law states, "Bad faith refers to dishonesty or fraud in a transaction. Depending on the exact setting, bad faith may mean a dishonest belief or purpose, untrustworthy performance of duties, neglect of fair dealing standards, or fraudulent intent. It is often related to a breach of the obligation inherent in all contracts to deal with the other parties in good faith and with fair dealing."
- https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/bad_faith
It was also apparent in the exceptions above that the "Implied Contract Exception" that states "an employee may have an expectation of a fixed term or even indefinite employment based on something the supervisor has done. This can take the form of employer's statements, an employer’s practice of only firing employees for cause, or an assertion in the employee handbook that specific termination procedures will be followed." This means that if there are employee handbooks, business conduct, or procedures in place, this also is an exception to the rule. Overall, if an employee is told they were in violation of such reasoning, specific incidents recorded, and steps to enact disciplinary actions must be in place.
In Mers v. Dispatch Printing Co. (1985), it states "Contracts — Employer and employee — Oral employment-at-will agreements — Terminable for any reason not contrary to law — Circumstances to be considered in determining terms of discharge — Promissory estoppel applicable, when... 2. The facts and circumstances surrounding an oral employment-at-will agreement, including the character of the employment, custom, the course of dealing between the parties, company policy, or any other fact which may illuminate the question, can be considered by the trier of fact in order to determine the agreement's explicit and implicit terms concerning discharge."
As stated by Cornell Law for "Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing" or "Good Faith" and in the "Implied Contract Exception," when reviewing what the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled on, it held that the doctrine of promissory estoppel could modify employment at will relationships if three conditions were met. First, the employer must make a promise that the employer should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance on the part of the employee. The Supreme Court recognized that in the case there was an implied contract and promissory estoppel (the doctrine that a party may recover on the basis of a promise made when the party's reliance on that promise was reasonable, and the party attempting to recover detrimentally relied on the promise).
The basis of promissory estoppel can be further compounded by the US Supreme Court's Ruling in Cohen v. Cowles Media Co. 501 US 663 (1991)(https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/501/663/), in which the Supreme Court recognized promissory estoppel as a "state law doctrine creating legal obligations never explicitly assumed by the parties that are enforceable."
II. Purpose of the complaint - The purpose of this case was to aid in the establishment of case precedent to allow limitations as to how an employer terminates employees within a guideline of the "at-will" status and not utilize the broad and easily abused doctrine this state has at this current time. This case would allow the State to build off of this case and mold the "at-will" regulations around the particulars of what this case would entail. This case would further allow that should employers fire their employee based on a violation of trust or violations of business "conduct" eliminates a mere termination without justification or proof of actual malice. This case would also establish promissory estoppel when employers provide such rules, codes of conduct and employee handbooks.
I implore the Supreme Court to reconsider this case and let it be heard as this case would aid in establishing fair employment laws and limit what employers can use as means to dismiss, terminate, and/or suspend their employees when implied contracts, promissory estoppels, and/or good faith is utilized.
Please list the restitution sought for this appeal I. Have this case ruling for dismissal to be overturned
II. Have this case remanded back to the District Court
Attorney Signature Elisha Wesler
Bar Number 23-0106
