Dillon vs Champion Dogbra Essay

1005 Words Jun 2nd, 2012 5 Pages
Assignment #5 – Dillon v. Champion Jogbra

Business Employment Law (HRIS)
Dr. Jean Gordon, Instructor

1. What were the legal issues in this case?
The legal issues in this case stem from a lawsuit filed by former Champion Jogbra employee, Linda Dillon. She accused her former employer of wrongful termination. She believed the company breached the implied contract and terminated her services without abiding by its progressive discipline policy as outlined in the company handbook. But, according to Walsh (2010, p. 589), “the first page of the manual states; the policies and procedures contained in this manual constitute guidelines only. They do not constitute part of an employment contract, nor are they intended to make any
…show more content…
Things were not as easy as they were made to seem.

3. Explain how the employer breached the implied contract.
Dillon’s new supervisor told her it would take four to six months to before she would be comfortable enough to perform the job. However, Dillon was not allowed to work that long. As a result, the employer breached the implied contract. The supervisor met with Dillon in the presence of the Human Resource manager to inform her that she was not working out just after being on the job for ten days. Prior to this meeting, Dillon was never informed that her job performance was unsatisfactory. In addition, Jogbra did not follow the procedures laid out in its own employee manual when terminating her.

4. Explain why the disclaimer in the employee manual does not have the effect desired by the employer.
The disclaimer that Champion Jogbra outlines in the employee handbook was intended to provide a clear message to new employees that the company makes no contracts or guarantees of continued employment with the company. The company is making an effort to free itself from certain responsibilities in an effort to avoid potential legal actions from employees. The reason the Champion Jogbra disclaimer did not have the effect they intended, is because they added Policy No. 720. Policy No. 720 refers to “an elaborate system governing employee

Related Documents