Janis v. AMP, INC.
Decision Date | 30 July 2004 |
Citation | 856 A.2d 140 |
Parties | Michael D. JANIS, Appellee, v. AMP, INCORPORATED, Appellant. |
Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Douglas G. Smith, Pittsburgh, for appellant.
Michael J. Crocenzi, Harrisburg, for appellee.
¶ 1 AMP, Incorporated, former employer of the appellee Michael D. Janis, appeals from the September 17, 2003, judgment of $120,221.901 entered for plaintiff in his breach of contract action. After a careful review of the record, we affirm.
¶ 2 Appellee was employed by appellant as an industrial engineer in Florida when he was approached by a member of management and asked if he would be interested in an expatriate assignment. Appellant expressed an interest, he was interviewed and offered the position, and subsequently was transferred, pursuant to the terms of the parties' July 1, 1992 agreement, to Hermosilla, Mexico. Appellee worked at that facility until April 30, 1999, when his employment with appellee was unilaterally terminated. In August 1999, appellee filed suit alleging appellant had breached the parties' employment contract by (1) failing to pay him the agreed upon bonuses; (2) failing to provide him with a comparable position in the United States following completion of his assignment in Mexico; and (3) unilaterally terminating his employment contract, the five-year term of which, appellee argued, automatically had renewed at the expiration of the July, 1992 contract. After much procedural posturing, the case went before a jury on January 27 and 28, 2003, and a verdict of $114,545.50 was entered in appellee's favor. Following post-trial motions, the verdict was molded to include an additional $2,838.20, for a total of $117,383.70. This appeal followed.
¶ 3 AMP argues it was entitled to a directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) because the jury erroneously concluded appellee had overcome the presumption of at-will employment. Appellant argues it is entitled to a new trial because the court erred by instructing the jury that an expired contract impliedly renews for the same term (duration). Appellant also contends it is entitled to a new trial or JNOV because the evidence established that as an at-will employer, it was free to modify the terms of appellee's employment, and appellee waived any entitlement to a bonus "by failing to complain" and continuing to work after the bonus program was terminated. Appellant's brief at 20.
¶ 4 Our standard of review when considering whether a directed verdict or JNOV was appropriate is as follows.
appeal denied, 573 Pa. 667, 820 A.2d 705 (2003). Determinations of credibility are for the fact finder. See Ferrer v. Trustees of the University of PA., 573 Pa. 310, 825 A.2d 591 (2003) ( ).
¶ 5 Appellant argues that the language of the "summary of policy provisions" applicable to appellee's job assignment in Mexico was not definitive enough to overcome the presumption of at-will employment and create an employment contract. Appellant points specifically to paragraphs 2, 15 and 16, which, for ease of explanation, are set forth below.
Record, No. 2, Complaint, Exhibit B (emphasis in original). It is appellant's position this language does not serve to form a contract between the parties, nor does it rebut the presumption of at-will employment recognized in Pennsylvania. In particular, appellant points to the emphasized language of paragraph number two and argues it does not set forth a term of "specific duration" necessary to rebut the presumption; "[t]he assignment is expected to last three years but no more than five years."
¶ 6 "In order to rebut the presumption of at-will employment, a party must establish one of the following: (1) an agreement for a definite duration; (2) an agreement specifying that the employee will be discharged for just cause only; (3) sufficient additional consideration; or (4) an applicable recognized public policy exception." Rapagnani v. The Judas Company, 736 A.2d 666, 669 (Pa.Super.1999), quoting Luteran v. Loral Fairchild Corp., 455 Pa.Super. 364, 688 A.2d 211, 214 (1997)
. Id. at 670 (quotations and citations omitted). When considering a purported employment contract, Greene v. Oliver Realty, 363 Pa.Super. 534, 526 A.2d 1192, 1199 (1987), appeal denied, 517 Pa. 607, 536 A.2d 1331 (1987) ( ); see also Marsh v. Boyle, 366 Pa.Super. 1, 530 A.2d 491, 493 (1987) ( )(citation omitted). "To ascertain the parties' intent, an important factor to consider is the presence of additional consideration." Id.
¶ 7 We find the facts support the jury's conclusion the parties negotiated and executed a valid contract for employment, for a specific duration and for additional consideration, thereby rebutting the at-will presumption. We therefore will not disturb that finding. See Ferrer, supra. In so finding, we look not only at the facts and testimony before us, but consider the ordinary business dealings when enticing an employee to take a foreign assignment.
Trial Court Opinion, Cherry, J., 7/24/03 at 4, citing Janis, supra. We agree that the testimony and evidence introduced at trial support this conclusion.
¶ 9...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Carroll v. Guardant Health, Inc.
...support of a motion for summary judgment as they do not represent undisputed facts." ECF Doc. No. 23 § C, ¶ 16.191 Janis v. AMP, Inc. , 856 A.2d 140, 144 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2004) (quoting Rapagnani v. The Judas Co. , 736 A.2d 666, 669 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1999) ).192 Woods , 677 F. Supp. 2d at 817 ......
-
In re Duran
...when one party continues to provide services and the other party does not object. See Smith, 69 A.2d at 158; Janis v. Amp, 856 A.2d 140, 147-48 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2004) (finding proper jury instruction that recognized renewal presumption if employee continued same services post-contract expira......
-
Belson v. Olson Rug Co.
...Pennsylvania law in holding that an at-will employment arrangement does not give rise to an employment contract. See Janis v. AMP, Inc., 856 A.2d 140, 144 (Pa.Super.Ct.2004) (“Where an employment arrangement does not contain a definite term, it will be presumed that the employment at-will r......
-
Atchison v. Sears, Civil Action No. 08-3257.
...just cause only; (3) sufficient additional consideration; or (4) an applicable recognized public policy exception." Janis v. AMP, Inc., 856 A.2d 140, 144-45 (Pa.Super.2004) (citations In this case, Atchison specifically acknowledged the at-will nature of his employment when he rejoined Sear......