Grozek v. Ragu Foods, Inc.
| Decision Date | 26 May 1978 |
| Citation | 406 N.Y.S.2d 213,63 A.D.2d 858 |
| Parties | Joseph GROZEK, Respondent, v. RAGU FOODS, INC., Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Bond, Schoeneck & King, by L. Lawrence Tully, Syracuse, for appellant.
Monroe County Legal Assistance Corp., Rochester (Ian C. DeWaal, Rochester, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MOULE, J. P., and DILLON, HANCOCK, DENMAN and WITMER, JJ.
Plaintiff was discharged from defendant's employ on October 10, 1975 for fighting with a co-employee. He appealed his discharge to the company president under the procedures set forth in an employee handbook titled "Ragu and You" and his discharge was upheld. On August 27, 1976 plaintiff brought two causes of action against defendant for wrongful discharge and defamation. Defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing both causes of action and now appeals from that part of the order of Special Term denying his motion with respect to the cause of action for wrongful discharge. Plaintiff does not cross-appeal from that part of the same order granting summary judgment dismissing the second cause of action for defamation.
It is well-settled that unless there is a definite period of service specified in a contract, the hiring is at will and the employer has the right to discharge and the employee to leave at any time, without advance notice, and neither has any cause of action against the other (36 N.Y.Jur. Master and Servant, § 15; Parker v. Borock, 5 N.Y.2d 156, 159, 182 N.Y.S.2d 577, 579, 156 N.E.2d 297, 298; Watson v. Gugino, 204 N.Y. 535, 541, 98 N.E. 18, 20; Walford v. British Caledonian Airways, 52 A.D.2d 922, 383 N.Y.S.2d 401). Stated in other terms, an employee who does not work under an agreement for a definite term of employment may be discharged at any time, with or without cause (36 N.Y.Jur., Master and Servant, § 26). If, however, the employment is for a definite term, the employer, in order to justify a discharge, must be able to show a breach by the employee of some express or implied provision of the contract (36 N.Y.Jur., Master and Servant, § 26).
Plaintiff, both in his complaint and answering affidavit, fails to allege that he had any contract of employment with defendant for a specific term. In particular, plaintiff admits in a deposition before trial that he had the right to leave the company for whatever reason, at any time he wished. He asserts, however, that a hiring-at-will may be limited by an agreement that an employee will not be discharged without just cause and that defendant's employee handbook, "Ragu and You", represents such an agreement. Therefore, plaintiff contends that the general rule, that an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bowrin v. Catholic Guardian Soc.
...See, e.g., Weiner v. McGraw-Hill, Inc., 57 N.Y.2d 458, 457 N.Y.S.2d 193, 443 N.E.2d 441 (N.Y. 1982); Grozek v. Ragu Foods, Inc., 63 A.D.2d 858, 406 N.Y.S.2d 213 (N.Y.App. Div.1978); Wernham v. Moore, 77 A.D.2d 262, 432 N.Y.S.2d 711 (N.Y.App.Div.1980). Rogers, however, fails to make any show......
-
Ohanian v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc.
...contract is ground for dismissal, whether or not there is a termination provision for "just cause." Grozek v. Ragu Foods, Inc., 63 A.D.2d 858, 406 N.Y.S.2d 213, 214 (1978) ("If, however, the employment is for a definite term, the employer, in order to justify a discharge, must be able to sh......
-
Shaitelman v. Phoenix Mut. Life Ins. Co., 79 Civ. 4488.
...an agreement for a definite term of employment may be discharged at any time, with or without cause ...." Grozek v. Ragu Foods, Inc., 63 A.D.2d 858, 406 N.Y.S.2d 213 (4th Dep't 1978). Accord, Parker v. Borock, 5 N.Y.2d 156, 159, 182 N.Y.S.2d 577, 156 N.E.2d 297 (1959); Chase v. United Hospi......
-
Boniuk v. New York Medical College
...N.Y.S.2d 747 (2d Dept.1979); Cartwright v. Golub Corp., 51 A.D.2d 407, 381 N.Y.S.2d 901 (3d Dept. 1976); Grozek v. Ragu Foods, Inc., 63 A.D.2d 858, 406 N.Y.S.2d 213 (4th Dept. 1978). Thus, despite some recent federal court statements that New York has or will recognize the doctrine of abusi......