Dillon V Champion Jogbra: Case Analysis

DILLION V. CHAMPION JOGBRA The objective of this study is to examine the case Dillion v.

Champion Jogbra and to answer the following questions: (1) What are the legal issues in this case? (2) What is the implied contract in this case? (3) How did the employer breach the implied contract in this case? (4) Why did the disclaimer in the employee manual fail to have the effect desired by the employer? What are the legal issues in this case? The legal issues in this case revolve around the employment at will of employees of the company Champion Jogbra and the wrongful termination of the employee Dillion.

Additionally at issue in this case is Champion Jogbra's 'Corrective Action Procedures' which are included in Champion Jogbra's employee handbook. The Corrective Action Procedures require that the company take specified steps prior to terminating an employee which includes that management use "training and employee counseling, to achieve the desired actions of employees." (p. 528) The Corrective Action Policy is reported to establish "three categories of violations of company policy and corresponding actions to be taken generally in each case." (p.

528) The Corrective Action Policy further is reported to delineate "progressive steps to be taken for certain types of cases including unsatisfactory quality of work and time periods governing things such as how long a reprimand is considered active." (p. 528) The result is that employees are sent messages that are mixed and the Corrective Action Policy in effect is inconsistent with the employment at will disclaimer contained in the employee manual.

Dillion states that when she was hired she was promised specified sufficient training by her predecessor but Dillion in fact only received four days of training by her predecessor. In addition, Dillion states that Champion Jogbra, and specifically her immediate supervisor informed her that she would not be comfortable in doing her job for a period of six (6) months and that she was not to worry about that.

However, after Dillion had been employed by Champion Jogbra for a period of approximately two (2) months, she was called into her supervisor's office and informed that her work was not satisfactory and that she was to be placed in a temporary position. Dillion was informed that she could apply for other positions within the company and should she not be assigned to another position by the end of December that she would be terminated.

Although Dillion did apply for one other position, she was not chosen to fill that position and at the end of December her employment with Champion Jogbra was terminated. II.

What is the implied contract in this case? The implied contact in this case is that Dillion will be on the receiving end of specified and sufficient training by her predecessor and that if her work is found to be unsatisfactory, after a period of six (6) months that Champion Jogbra will follow the specified actions set out in the Corrective Action Policy prior to terminating her employment. III.

How did the employer breach the implied contract in this case? The employer did not provide what was sufficient training as specified in the oral agreement between Champion Jogbra and Dillion when Dillion was give the job. In addition, the employer, Champion Jogbra informed Dillion that she would not be comfortable doing her job for a period of six (6) months and that she was not to worry about that.

However, on September 29, approximately only two (2) months into the employment of Dillion by Champion Jogbra, Dillion was called into her supervisor's office and informed that she would be reassigned to a temporary job that ended in December and that if she had not been assigned to another position within the company that she would be terminated at the end of December. Although Dillion did apply for another position within the company, she was not assigned to the position.

The employer did not use the Corrective Action Policy procedures which are clearly set out in the employee handbook denying Dillion the benefit of these policy procedures. IV. Why did the disclaimer in the employee manual fail to have the effect desired by the employer? The work of Klingshirn (2009) states that employee handbooks "provide important guidance to employees about benefits, vacations, holidays, work rules and the laws of your workplace. Some courts have found that statements in employee handbooks created contracts…" (p.

1) Klingshirn (2009) reports that under the implied contract exception "a handbook may be found to alter the terms of employment at will if the employee and employer have agreed to create a contract from the writing. Absent of mutual assent, however, a handbook is merely a unilateral statement of rules and policies which creates no rights and obligations." (p.

1) The required elements needed to establish a claim for promissory estoppels are reported to include the following stated elements: (1) A promise clear and unambiguous in its terms; (2) reliance by the party to whom the promise is made; (3) the reliance must be reasonable and foreseeable; and (4) the party claiming estoppel must be injured by the reliance. (Klingshirn, 2009, p. 1) While Champion Jogbra's employee manual did contain an employment at will disclaimer,.