As I continue to take some time off, with the start of baseball season, I thought I’d share this 2019 post about baseball contracts. Play ball and Go Yankees!
Employment law contracts typically are not that complex. Oh sure, they may LOOK complex but most of the time, you build them with the same building
I was going to save this post for the Yankees run into the World Series, but with the Yankees losing last night, it seems quite possible that they might not get there this year.
Employment law contracts typically are not that complex. Oh sure, they may LOOK complex but most of the time, you build
Shorter is better.
Why? The slang TL;DR comes to mind.
But it turns out there’s an educational component too — at least according to the results of a new study that examined workplace contracts.
In the study, published in the Journal of Personality & Social Psychology and recapped by Insights by Stanford Business School
My colleague Chris Engler reports today on a new Connecticut Appellate Court case that focuses on a often misunderstood concept in employment contracts — the need for “consideration”. What was it that Dire Straits’ sang about in the 1980s? Getting “Money for Nothing”?
We’ve all been told that you can’t get something for nothing. That lesson was reiterated in a new case by the Appellate Court due to be officially released next week.
The Facts
As told by the Court, the facts of the case, Thoma v. Oxford Performance Materials, Inc., revolve around the employer’s attempts to attract investors.
One investment company told the employer, Oxford, that it wanted assurances that key personnel would not leave. Oxford dutifully entered into employment contracts with various employees, including Lynne Thoma.
The details of the contracts are important. This first employment contract gave Ms. Thoma a higher salary, job security (termination could only be with 60 days’ notice), and a severance package. In return, Ms. Thoma promised not to leave during the contract period and not to work for a competitor for six months after leaving. Ms. Thoma signed this contract.
At this point, both parties had gotten a benefit, and all seemed well.
But then a second investment company informed Oxford of its dissatisfaction because the employment contract was “too strong.” So Oxford went back to the drawing board and crafted new contracts.
Ms. Thoma’s second contract was quite different. It removed all of the monetary elements, including the salary increase. The new contract also allowed Oxford to fire Ms. Thoma without notice or cause. Finally, it prohibited Ms. Thoma from working for a competitor. (The length of this prohibition was unclear. If you’re a contract jargon junkie, I recommend reading the court’s analysis in full.)
Nevertheless, Ms. Thoma went ahead and signed this contract as well.
A year later, Oxford fired Ms. Thoma. She demanded the benefits from the first contract. Thus commenceth this case.
Is the Second Contract Enforceable?
Ultimately, both the trial court and the appellate court sided with Ms. Thoma, concluding that she didn’t receive any consideration in exchange for the sacrifices she made in the second contract. In other words, she gave up some perks without getting anything in return.
Continue Reading “Consider” This Important: Employment Contracts Are a Two-Way Street
I’ll first acknowledge the obvious: UConn’s national championships in both men’s and women’s basketball is a weak excuse for a post on employment law topics.
And yet, that hasn’t stopped me before. (See 2009, 2011, etc.)
For Kevin Ollie, the victory provides a nice financial bonus to him. How do I know this? Because
Updated
At a press conference later today, legendary UConn Basketball Coach Jim Calhoun is expected to announce his retirement. He has been such a fixture in this state, not only for basketball, but for his charitable work, that it’s hard to imagine the team without him.
His contract, which you can download here,
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court revisited the subject of arbitration provisions in the employment context, creating some concern among legislators about the implications of this decision.
In this week’s Connecticut Law Tribune, my colleague Cara Ceraso has drafted a nifty article about legislation now pending in Congress that would allow employees to bring their
In a decision released today, the Connecticut Appellate Court upheld a lower court judgment that found that a local lawfirm breached its employment contract to an associate by failing to pay that associate a bonus.
It’s rare to see lawfirms involved in employment disputes, and even rarer, to have cases proceed all the way to
The Connecticut Appellate Court today unofficially released a Per Curium decision that affirms the general principle that a contract for an indefinite term is a contract for at-will employment, even in the apparent absence of express terms. 
In Ward v. Distinctive Directories, Inc., (officially released on October 23, 2007), the Court was asked to review
In Connecticut, the loyalties between the Red Sox and Yankees are about evenly split. So, for now, it’s baseball nirvana here in the state. If both win their divisional series, there will be many late nights here in Connecticut watching a Yankees-Red Sox matchup.
In honor of the baseball playoffs beginning this week, I thought I