Fisher v. Jackson
118 A.2d 316, 1955 Conn. LEXIS 232, 142 Conn. 734 (1955)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An agreement for "permanent employment," without additional consideration beyond the employee's services, is an indefinite hiring terminable at the will of either party. The mere act of an employee giving up a previous job to accept a new position is not sufficient additional consideration to create an enforceable contract for lifetime employment.
Facts:
- The defendant, owner of the New Haven Register newspaper, placed an advertisement in a trade magazine for a "permanent position" as a reporter.
- The plaintiff, who was employed at a bakery, responded to the advertisement with a letter stating he was seeking a connection that would "prove permanent."
- The plaintiff was interviewed for approximately ten minutes by the defendant's managing editor.
- In January 1944, the defendant hired the plaintiff as a reporter, and the plaintiff left his job at the bakery to accept the position.
- On or about January 7, 1949, the defendant discharged the plaintiff from his employment.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff initiated an action in a trial court against the defendant to recover damages for breach of an oral employment agreement.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.
- The trial court rendered judgment upon the jury's verdict.
- The defendant filed a motion to set the verdict aside and a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
- The trial court denied both of the defendant's post-trial motions.
- The defendant, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employee's act of giving up a previous job constitute sufficient additional consideration to transform an otherwise terminable-at-will 'permanent employment' agreement into an enforceable contract for lifetime employment?
Opinions:
Majority - Wynne, J.
No. An employee's act of giving up a previous job does not constitute sufficient additional consideration to make an agreement for 'permanent employment' a binding contract for life. In the absence of consideration beyond the rendering of services, a contract for permanent employment is considered an indefinite hiring, terminable at the will of either party. The court reasoned that the term 'permanent position' in the advertisement merely implied that the job was not temporary, rather than guaranteed for life. To create an enforceable lifetime contract, any consideration provided by the employee must not only be a detriment to them but must also be bargained for and given in exchange for the employer's promise. The plaintiff's act of leaving his bakery job was not something the defendant's agent bargained for; it was simply a necessary incident of the plaintiff placing himself in a position to accept the new employment. Therefore, it did not constitute sufficient consideration to support a claim for lifetime employment.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the strong presumption of at-will employment in American contract law, clarifying the high bar required to establish an enforceable lifetime employment contract. It establishes that for a promise of lifetime employment to be binding, an employee must provide 'additional consideration' that the employer specifically bargained for, beyond simply performing the job duties. By explicitly stating that leaving a prior job is not sufficient, the ruling significantly narrows the path for employees to enforce such promises, requiring clear evidence of a bargained-for exchange for the guarantee of job security.
