If his employment contract made 'at will' not a company option, they had no grounds to let him go. George may also win based on the fact of the unclear terminology and explanation of the multiple manuals. The grounds could be that the company made the documents purposefully vague in order to deceive employees. The company has a good shot of winning for similar reasons. Based on the employment contract, was there an 'income producing' clause incorporated into the contract? If he was supposed to produce X amount to be employed, he certainly would not have met those expectations. There were other grounds that George abandoned his post and may have actually quit. Based on the fact of his abandonment and his no longer producing income for the company, they may have had a right to let him go. They could clearly demonstrate that he did not meet the requirements of the manuals and vesting schedule if he was legally terminated because he was not 65 and he had less than 10 years of service.

If I were the judge that heard this particular case, I would have to side against Corrigan and for Mr. George. Both parties could have done things better but in the end it looks like the company missed its contractual obligations in many more situations. My decision would mainly be based on the fact that the Corrigan company manuals were a mess. They were poorly written and simply not clear. I would have to assume that that was...

I believe that the company was purposefully trying to deceive their employees. Secondly, it certainly appeared that Mr. George has a viable option of pursuing a wrongful termination complaint but as the judge I would not have an obligation of telling him that. Hopefully he would know to go to an attorney. The Corrigan Company seemed to release Mr. George simply to stop all future payments. They certainly would have a difficult time justifying their action considering their own manuals created a scenario that allowed Mr. George to be classified as retired.
4. The underlying question that is not made clear in the description is whether Sally Sadly should have been at that convention and in that car. In other words, was she there under the instructions of the company? If so, was she doing anything illegal? What was the situation of the driver? Was he intoxicated or driving recklessly or doing anything else illegal? Although she was riding in the car, did Sally actually cause the accident? Were they having an illicit office relationship? This line of reasoning would all remove liability from the company, but if both parties were there for work and nothing sinister was going on, it looks as though the employer is liable and would probably have to pay.