Lee v. Coahoma Opportunities, Inc.
| Decision Date | 19 March 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 56803,56803 |
| Citation | 485 So.2d 293 |
| Parties | Arvett LEE (Formerly Arvett Baker) v. COAHOMA OPPORTUNITIES, INC. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Walter W. Thompson, J. Walker Sims, Clarksdale, for appellant.
M. Lee Graves, Clarksdale, for appellee.
Before WALKER, P.J., and ROBERTSON and ANDERSON, JJ.
Plaintiff, Arvett Lee (formerly Arvett Baker), has been a longtime employee of the Defendant, Coahoma Opportunities, Inc. She filed her complaint in the County Court of Coahoma County stating several claims said to arise out of her employment contract. Specifically, Lee sought modest monetary sums claimed to be owing to her, alleged to arise out of unreimbursed travel expenses, together with an injunction that Coahoma Opportunities promote her to the position of parent activity worker. The matter was transferred to the Chancery Court of Coahoma County, Mississippi, which on August 2, 1985, entered judgment in Lee's favor on her claim for monetary relief in the amount of $79.30 but then held it was without jurisdiction of her promotion claim--set out in Counts II through IV of the complaint. This latter ruling is the subject of Lee's appeal here.
There can be no doubt but that one may have a valid and enforceable agreement with one's employer to the effect that certain promotional opportunities will be forthcoming upon the occurrence of certain specified contingencies. Among the remedies our law affords such employees is a court issued directive that the employer abide by its bargain, that is, in appropriate circumstances our courts may order specific performance. In this sense, Lee certainly presents a colorable claim of a violation of her rights and for relief.
If we correctly perceive the less than adequate record before us, the Chancery Court nevertheless dismissed the claim in question for lack of jurisdiction, subject matter variety. In doing so it overlooked the fact that the presence of such jurisdiction turns upon the well pleaded allegations of the complaint which are taken as true. American Fire Insurance Co. v. Athens Stove Works, Inc., 481 So.2d 292, 296 (Miss.1985); Luckett v. Mississippi Wood, Inc., 481 So.2d 288, 290 (Miss.1985). Where the plaintiff presents a colorable claim for relief, a claim of a type within the general subject matter jurisdiction of the court, the court acquires authority to hear all proceedings respecting it--whether the complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted, whether the claim can survive a motion for summary judgment, on through trial and post-trial proceedings. See...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Eure v. US Postal Service
...28 U.S.C. § 2680(h). Furthermore, plaintiff advances no claims for breach of any employment contract. See, e.g., Lee v. Coahoma Opportunities, Inc., 485 So.2d 293 (Miss.1986); Landry v. Moody Grishman Agency, Inc., 254 Miss. 363, 181 So.2d 134 5 Any argument that these claims are rescued by......
-
Ivy v. Illinois Cent. Gulf R. Co.
...See Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Coussens, 223 Miss. 103, 110-18, 77 So.2d 818, 819-23 (1955); see also Lee v. Coahoma Opportunities, Inc., 485 So.2d 293, 294 (Miss.1986). The complaint in intervention arises out of the same occurrence as the original FELA complaint--the death of Na......
-
In re Rules Procedure
...injunctions in cases falling within the concurrent jurisdiction of the chancery and county court. See, e.g., Lee v. Coahoma Opportunities, Inc., 485 So. 2d 293, 294 (Miss. 1986) (citing Miss. Code Ann. §9-9-21(1)) ("A claim for specific performance of a contract of employment plus attendant......
-
Derr Plantation, Inc. v. Swarek
...performance as a remedy for breach of contract is within the equity jurisdiction of the chancery court. Lee v. Coahoma Opportunities, Inc., 485 So.2d 293, 294-95 (Miss. 1986). The Swareks' complaint alleged that DPI had breached an agreement to lease and sell them a large farm, and they cla......