Case Study Situation Go Fast Essay Example for Free

causal agent learn Situation Go Fast EssaySituation Go Fast is a ride manufacturer in the southern United States. Though sales lease been steady, profits have declined be courting of change magnitude operational costs. The Board of Directors felt a fresh look at the trading operations side was needed. They substantial a 5-year plan to increase operating efficiency and set out to find someone to gallop the effort. Four months ago, GO FAST found what they saw as the person to be the brand-new operations director and develop a new operational plan to reduce costs. Jill Jones had an outstanding reputation as operations director for a manufacturer of a closely link product. While she was located in a different state and was happy with her current job and lifestyle, she found the 5-year plan exciting. Besides, the aim was too tempting to refuse.Jill was offered the position, including a substantial increase in salary and benefits. She accepted the job, sold her lieu, and purchased a home near her new job. Her husband runs an in-home business and her children had adapted well to the new community and schools. She did non have a written shorten, but was presaged a great future with GO FAST and was given a salary of $90,000 per year. With the economic downturn, sales for this past year were the lowest in five years. The company inevitably to make drastic cost reductions or it could face bankruptcy. All senior managers agreed to a 25% pay cut. Several other high-paid positions will be eliminated. Among them is Jill Jones operations director position.Published by DECA relate Materials. Copyright by DECA Inc. No transgress of this publication whitethorn be reproduced for resale without written permission from the publisher. Printed in the United States of America.YOUR CHALLENGE The CFO has been asked by the come along of directors to investigate GO FASTS cartel to Jill Jones. You have been assigned the task of doing research. The board of directo rs assumes their agreement with Mrs. Jones is terminable-at-will ground on the law in the state, and accordingly GO FAST has no obligation to her. You will prepare recommendations to be presented to the chief financial police officer (CFO). Since the decision is ultimately up to the CFO, your presentation should include, at a minimum 1. How you expect Jill would react to the boards hard-line approach. 2. Possible ways to deal with Mrs. Jones situation, including the positives and negatives of each. 3. Of these, you are to advise the CFO on the best(p) course of action, and how to present it to Jill. While the financial challenges of the company are not a secret, Jill does not until now know that her position has been targeted for elimination. Your presentation to the CFO will begin in one hour. As part of your research you have pulled a copy of The Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, as well as incidents related to this abridge (see reference development provided).The infor mation in THIS section is the result of research done specifically for this case situation, and has been given to you to help you prepare your recommendations within the allotted time. The judges will also receive this information, in addition to the Case Study Situation and Your Challenge as presented.BACKGROUND INFORMATIONThe following information provides background related to this situation.State Employment LawUnder state law, employment generally is considered to be at will, terminable by either party at any time. This means that an employer may modify an employee with or without just cause, in the absence of an agreement limiting the employees discharge to just cause or specifying the term of the employment. Even where an employer makes assurances seeming to mean job permanence, such assurances are generally considered classic statements of policy indicating only at-will employment. However, state courts have also held that employee personnel department manual provisions, i f they meet the requirements for formation of a coloured pose, may become enforceable as part of a contract of employment. An agreement which includes a promise from one party but not from the other is called a unilateral contract. A unilateral contract is, for example, where an employer promises to pay a plastered wage if an employee does a sure task for a certain period of time. The employees performance of that task for that time makes him or her entitled to the promised wages.The promise of employment on contingent terms of unspecified duration, if presented in the form of an offer and accepted by the employee, will bring out a binding unilateral contract. These types of actions are referred to as promissory estoppel actions and they provide an exception to the employment-at-will doctrine. In ramble to constitute a contract, the employers personnel policy as set out in the personnel policy handbook must be more than a general statement of policy and must provide reasonabl y definite terms for a fact finder to interpret and apply in determining whether there has been a breach of the contract arising from that handbook. General statements of policy by an employer do not meet the contractual requirements of an offer. Employees frequently couple claims that certain oral representations constitute an enforceable agreement with assertions that certain actions by the employer create an implied contract to terminate only for good cause.For example, employees often contend that an employer has established a custom and practice such that employees are permitted to continue employment until retirement unless discharged for good and equal cause. Such an allegation does not meet the requirement of a definite offer. Similarly, an employers commendations and approval of the employees performance do not alter the employees at-will status. Severance pay is not required by legislation. Where it is provided by an employer or labor agreement, it must not be administrat ed in a discriminatory manner. Where it is provided, rift pay is considered wages in this state. The method of payment of severance pay may delay the employees eligibility for unemployment compensation benefits.Promissory Estoppel The state Supreme Court recognized that, despite the absence of a contract in fact, courts may insinuate the existence of a contract in law by utilizing the article of faith of promissory estoppel. The doctrine of promissory estoppel is applicable when 1. A promise has been made 2. The promissory reasonably evaluate to induce action of a definite and substantial timbre by the promise 3. The promise in fact induces such action 4. The circumstances require the enforcement of the promise in order to avoid in arbiter. An estoppel may arise from a promise of future performance. The doctrine of promissory estoppel is based in a promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action of forbearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promise and which induces such action or forbearance and is binding if injustice cornerstone be avoided only by enforcement of the promise.Under the theory of promissory estoppel, liability on a contract may ensue even if the detriment incurred by one party is not bargained for where it can be presentn that the promisor should reasonably have expected its promise to induce anothers detrimental action. The impairment-of-contract clause in the states constitution applies to an implied-in-law obligation created by promissory estoppel. The effect of promissory estoppel is to imply a contract in law where none exists in fact. When a promise is enforced pursuant(predicate) to the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the remedy granted for the breach may be limited as justice requires relief may be limited to damages measured by the promises reliance. cerebrate CASE PRECEDENTS INFORMATIONThe following information is designed to provide samples of cases that may influence decisi ons made related to the case situation. The participants must decide what, if any, relevance these Related Case Precedents have on this Case Study Situation.Grouse v. Plan, Inc. (1981)The doctrine of promissory estoppel was applied by the court to grant damages to a pharmacist who accepted a job offer, resigned his current job and declined another job offer in reliance on this offer, but was terminated from his new job before he even had a lay on the line to start it. Plan Inc knew that to accept its offer Grouse would have to resign his employment. Grouse promptly gave observation and informed Plan Inc that he had done so when specifically asked by them. Under these circumstances it would be unjust not to hold Plan Inc to its promise.Gorham v. Optical (1995)Former employee was entitled to reliance damages based on theory of promissory estoppel, where he quit his previous job and declined any renegotiations with previous employer in reliance on promise of new job, and on his firs t day of employment went through foreign reinterview process that led to his immediate termination.Lewis v. Assurance Society (1986)A promise of employment on particular terms of unspecified duration, if presented in form of an offer and accepted by employee, will create a binding unilateral contract.Pine River v. Mettille (1983)Generally speaking, promise of employment on particular terms of unspecified duration, if in form of an offer, and if accepted by employee, may create binding unilateral contract offer must be definite in form and must be communicated to the offeree.Goodkind v. University (1988)Whether a proposal by employer is meant to be an offer for a unilateral contract is determined by the outward manifestations of the parties, not by their subjective useions, and employers general statements of policy do not meet the contractual requirements for an offer.Gunderson v. Professionals, Inc. (2001)To overcome the effrontery that employment is at will, an employee typical ly must establish clear and unequivocal language by the employer evidencing an intent to provide job security. General statements about job security, company policy, or an employers desire to concord an employee indefinitely are insufficient to overcome the presumption that employment is at will.Spanier v. Bank (1993)Terminated employee failed to show any evidence of offer for long-term employment in definite form so as to be entitled to recover for employers breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair transaction as result of his termination, where employees claims were based on subjective belief and his own inferences that employers commitment to commercial lending business would provide him job security and employers statements about developing this new area of business did not constitute long-term employment offer.