Implied Contract and Wrongful Termination: Champion Jogbra Case
This paper examines the legal issues arising from the employment dispute in Champion Jogbra (819 A.2d 703, Vt. 2002), focusing on wrongful termination and implied contract law. The analysis identifies the implied contract formed through oral assurances and the company's Corrective Action Policy, explains how the employer breached that contract by failing to provide adequate training and follow progressive disciplinary procedures, and evaluates why the employment-at-will disclaimer in the employee handbook failed to shield the employer from liability. Drawing on principles of promissory estoppel and implied contract exceptions, the paper concludes that the Corrective Action Policy created enforceable obligations that overrode the at-will disclaimer.
- Introduction and Legal Issues: At-will employment and wrongful termination issues identified
- The Implied Contract: Oral promises and Corrective Action Policy form contract
- Employer's Breach of the Implied Contract: Insufficient training and skipped disciplinary procedures
- Why the Disclaimer Failed: Corrective Action Policy overrides at-will disclaimer
- Summary and Conclusion: Wrongful termination finding based on contract breach
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper is tightly organized around four focused legal questions, giving it a clear analytical framework that guides the reader through each element of the wrongful termination claim.
- It connects factual details — such as the four days of training and the two-month timeline — directly to legal arguments, grounding abstract contract principles in concrete events.
- The use of Klingshirn (2009) to define promissory estoppel elements adds credible doctrinal support and demonstrates engagement with secondary legal commentary alongside the primary case citation.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates issue-spotting and legal reasoning, a core skill in business law and employment law writing. Each section isolates one legal question, states the relevant rule or policy, applies it to the facts of the case, and draws a conclusion. This IRAC-adjacent structure (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) makes the argument easy to follow and evaluate.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by identifying the central legal issues, then moves sequentially through the implied contract's formation, the employer's breach, and the handbook disclaimer's ineffectiveness. A brief summary and conclusion restates the paper's overall finding. The bibliography lists both the primary Vermont Supreme Court case and the secondary Klingshirn source in APA format.
Introduction and Legal Issues
The legal issues in this case revolve around the employment-at-will status of employees at Champion Jogbra and the alleged wrongful termination of the plaintiff. Also at issue is Champion Jogbra's Corrective Action Policy, which is included in the company's employee handbook. The Corrective Action Policy requires that the company take specified steps prior to terminating an employee, including that management use "training and employee counseling, to achieve the desired actions of employees" (p. 528). The policy is reported to establish "three categories of violations of company policy and corresponding actions to be taken generally in each case" (p. 528). It further "delineate[s] 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 receive mixed messages, and the Corrective Action Policy is effectively inconsistent with the employment-at-will disclaimer contained in the employee manual.
The plaintiff states that when she was hired, she was promised specified, sufficient training by her predecessor; however, she in fact received only four days of training. In addition, Champion Jogbra — and specifically her immediate supervisor — informed her that she would not be comfortable in her role for a period of six months and that she was not to worry about that. However, after approximately two months of employment, she was called into her supervisor's office and informed that her work was unsatisfactory and that she would be placed in a temporary position. She was told she could apply for other positions within the company, and that if she had not been assigned to another position by the end of December, her employment would be terminated.
Although the plaintiff did apply for one other position, she was not selected, and at the end of December her employment with Champion Jogbra was terminated. Under employment-at-will doctrine, an employer may generally terminate an employee for any reason or no reason; however, this case raises important exceptions to that rule.
The Implied Contract
The implied contract in this case is twofold: first, that the plaintiff would receive specified and sufficient training from her predecessor; and second, that if her work was found to be unsatisfactory, Champion Jogbra would follow the specified steps set out in the Corrective Action Policy — including training and counseling — prior to terminating her employment, and that such an evaluation would not occur until after a period of six months.
Employer's Breach of the Implied Contract
The employer did not provide the sufficient training specified in the oral agreement made when the plaintiff accepted the position. In addition, Champion Jogbra had informed the plaintiff that she would not be expected to be comfortable in her role for six months and that she was not to worry about her performance during that period. Nevertheless, on approximately September 29 — only two months into her employment — she was called into her supervisor's office and informed that she would be reassigned to a temporary position ending in December, and that if she had not secured another position within the company by that time, she would be terminated.
Although the plaintiff applied for another internal position, she was not selected. Critically, the employer did not follow the Corrective Action Policy procedures clearly set out in the employee handbook, thereby denying the plaintiff the benefit of those procedural protections. The wrongful termination doctrine recognizes that an employer's failure to follow its own stated procedures can constitute a breach of an implied contract.
References
Champion Jogbra, 819 A.2d 703 (Vt. 2002).
Klingshirn, N. (2009). Writing effective employee handbooks. Klingshirn Ohio.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.