Martin v. KVTV-Channel 13

In August of 2008, Vann Kennedy, acting as an agent of KVTV, offered Robert Martin a job as station manager. Martin accepted. Martin asserts that under the terms of this oral agreement, he was to work from year to year, and the contract would be renewed for one-year terms, so long as his work was satisfactory. While Martin asserts in his pleadings that he would not be fired except for good cause, Martin avers that Kennedy requested that Martin's employment would continue as long as his work was satisfactory and that employment for more than one year was "doable."In November of 2009, Martin received a Notice of Termination of Employment. The notice indicated that because Martin had caused the company's profits to decrease, his employment was terminated. Martin believes that he performed every condition and obligation under the contract adequately and that he gave KVTV no reason to terminate him. KVTV argues that Martin's employment was at-will, and thus, Martin could have been terminated for any reason or no reason at all.

Martin asserts that summary judgment was improperly granted for his claims for breach of contract, wrongful discharge, and breach of promise of job security. These causes of action are all premised on the allegation that his employment was contractual. Thus, we first consider whether Martin's employment was contractual or at-will.

The general rule in Texas, and in most states, is that "absent a specific agreement to the contrary, employment may be terminated by the employer or the employee at will, for a good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all."Such at-will employment, however, may become contractual based on oral statements of those in authority.To contractually bind an employer, "the employer must unequivocally indicate a definite intent to be bound not to terminate the employee except under clearly specified circumstances." General promises or assurances that an employee will not be discharged if he performs satisfactorily or that the employee will only be terminated for "good cause" do not constitute a binding contract.An employee must reveal a more formal agreement with the employer to modify at-will employment.

According to Martin's pleadings, he and KVTV entered an oral agreement that Martin would be employed as station manager. Under the contract, Martin would work from year to year, and the contract would be automatically renewed for successive one-year terms, so long as his work was satisfactory. The response to the interrogatory and corresponding affidavit does not indicate that anything more than assurances were given to Martin concerning the duration of his employment. Martin asserts that Kennedy informed him of his annual salary, vacation time, and possible future raises, that Kennedy promised that his contract was to be renewed from year to year contingent on satisfactory performance and that a commitment by KVTV for one to three years was "very doable." Kennedy also assured him that a written agreement would not be necessary.

Accepting Martin's pleadings as true, Martin still has not presented evidence to indicate that KVTV unequivocally indicated a definite intent not to terminate. The standard set forth in the Brown case requires a more formal agreement. See Brown, holding that employee who relocated relying on the employer's assurances that she would not be terminated without good cause did not have a contractual employment relationship. Thus, KVTV did not modify Martin's at-will employment to a specific contractual arrangement. Because breach of contract, wrongful termination, and promise of job security are all causes of action that require contractual employment, the trial court correctly granted summary judgment on these issues. Summary judgment was properly granted on this issue.

SAMPLE ANSWER:NOTE: Include the name of the case & student names

a)Key facts:Plaintiff Martin accepted a job offer as station manager from Kennedy on behalf of KVTV.The oral agreement was to work for one-year terms, so long as work was satisfactory and employment for more than one year was 'doable".He was fired based on the assertion Martin had caused profits to decrease. Plaintiff claims there was no reason to terminate and he brings an action for breach of contract.

b)a report on the status of the legal process:stage of litigation, judicial or legislative decision:The trial court granted a summary judgment in favor of the defendant and the plaintiff appeals.

c)the legal question/issue the court needs to address: Plaintiff's claim requires a finding of an employment contract; therefore, the court must decide whether the employment was contractual or "at-will"."At will" is the general law in Texas that allows firing for any or no reason.

d)an evaluation of the competing interests in this matter (eg: what are the key arguments on each side):the plaintiff is arguing that the oral promises were sufficient to create an employment contract.The defendant is claiming that generally is "at-will": "absent an agreement to the contrary employment is at will and may be terminated for a good cause, bad cause or no cause at all".

e)the legal rule the court is adopting that is now the precedent:To create an oral employment contract, the employer must unequivocally indicate a definite intent to be bound not to terminate the employee except under clearly specified circumstances.

f)the decision of the case (eg: affirmed, reversed, reversed, and remanded and in whose favor): Summary judgment in favor of the defendant is affirmed.

g)an explanation of the impact or likely relevance for business:in hiring personnel, oral promises can create an employment contract when the promises or assurances are very specific, so the hirer should be trained in the specific language to use.Where a contract is desired it should be in writing to avoid confusion.

h)the student's evaluation of or comment on the decision:many people think you can't be fired unless there's a good reason, but that isn't true where "at will" is the general rule.This may seem unfair, but it allows employment flexibility for employers.