Courts in Nevada have routinely established that, “summary judgment is appropriate only when the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and no genuine issue of material fact remains for trial;" properly supported factual allegations of the party opposing summary judgment must be accepted as true.” Perez v. Las Vegas Med. Ctr., 107 Nev. 1, 805 P.2d 589 (1991).
ARGUMENT
Daily Mirror was well within its rights to terminate Ms. Cohen’s employment at any time and for any reason it felt compelled to do so as she was an at-will employee. Daily Mirror never entered into any express employment contract with Ms. Cohen. Similarly, the facts and evidence surrounding this case, when viewed in the best possible light to Ms. Cohen’s, do not give rise to an implied contract for continued employment.
STATEMENT MADE TO MS. COHEN BY JEFREY HOLMGREN WERE MERELY A GENERAL EXPRESSION OF ANTICIPATED LONG-TERM EMPLOYMENT RATHER THAN LANGUAGE THAT GAVE RISE TO MODIFICATION OF THE AT-WILL EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP
Nevada law is clear …show more content…
v. Vargas examined the issue of an employee manual that clearly established that an employee could be fired only for cause. Subsequent to the issuance of the manual to the plaintiff, in that case, the employer attempted to modify the language in the manual by issuing a new manual, which included an at-will disclaimer, and having employees sign an acknowledgment as such. 111 Nev. at 1070. Ms. Cohen will argue that Southwest Gas applies here. We disagree. Southwest, while somewhat factually similar to our own case, is heavily distinguishable. There, the court found that prior to the plaintiff accepting the manual and signing its acknowledgement the plaintiff was given verbal assurances that nothing was changing in regarding termination procedures or length of employment. The plaintiff’s reliance on this assurance in essence nullified the attempt to modify the employee manual with the disclaimer.
ARGUMENT
Daily Mirror was well within its rights to terminate Ms. Cohen’s employment at any time and for any reason it felt compelled to do so as she was an at-will employee. Daily Mirror never entered into any express employment contract with Ms. Cohen. Similarly, the facts and evidence surrounding this case, when viewed in the best possible light to Ms. Cohen’s, do not give rise to an implied contract for continued employment.
STATEMENT MADE TO MS. COHEN BY JEFREY HOLMGREN WERE MERELY A GENERAL EXPRESSION OF ANTICIPATED LONG-TERM EMPLOYMENT RATHER THAN LANGUAGE THAT GAVE RISE TO MODIFICATION OF THE AT-WILL EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP
Nevada law is clear …show more content…
v. Vargas examined the issue of an employee manual that clearly established that an employee could be fired only for cause. Subsequent to the issuance of the manual to the plaintiff, in that case, the employer attempted to modify the language in the manual by issuing a new manual, which included an at-will disclaimer, and having employees sign an acknowledgment as such. 111 Nev. at 1070. Ms. Cohen will argue that Southwest Gas applies here. We disagree. Southwest, while somewhat factually similar to our own case, is heavily distinguishable. There, the court found that prior to the plaintiff accepting the manual and signing its acknowledgement the plaintiff was given verbal assurances that nothing was changing in regarding termination procedures or length of employment. The plaintiff’s reliance on this assurance in essence nullified the attempt to modify the employee manual with the disclaimer.