Kopin v. Orange Products, Inc.
688 A.2d 130, 297 N.J. Super. 353, 1997 N.J. Super. LEXIS 59 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer's express promise to financially compensate an employee for valuable business suggestions can override the common law shop right rule, permitting the employee to pursue a quantum meruit claim for the reasonable value of the benefit conferred.
Facts:
- David Kopin was employed by Orange Products, Inc., where his primary duty was to maintain grinding wheels on machines that produced plastic balls.
- Kopin's role was that of a machinist, and he was not an engineer responsible for designing major machine improvements.
- In March 1986, the new owners of Orange Products, Sachdev and Verdi, held a meeting where Verdi stated that any employee whose suggestion for improvement was used would be 'financially remunerated.'
- Following this promise, between 1986 and 1990, Kopin developed and suggested several major improvements to the grinding machines, including a new flange design and a new feeding hopper.
- Orange Products implemented Kopin's suggestions, which allegedly resulted in a significant increase in production from 49 to 71 drums of plastic balls per shift.
- Kopin received his regular salary and small annual bonuses but was never specifically compensated for his suggestions.
- In 1991, Kopin directly requested remuneration for his suggestions from Sachdev, who dismissed the matter, leading Kopin to resign shortly thereafter.
Procedural Posture:
- David Kopin sued Orange Products, Inc. in the Law Division (trial court) for breach of an express contract.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Orange Products, finding the contract lacked specificity.
- Kopin appealed to the Appellate Division, which remanded the case to allow Kopin to amend his complaint to add a quasi-contract/quantum meruit claim.
- After Kopin filed an amended complaint, Orange Products again moved for summary judgment, arguing the shop right rule barred the claim.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Orange Products a second time, holding that the claim was barred by the shop right rule, laches, and the entire controversy doctrine.
- Kopin (appellant) appealed the second grant of summary judgment to the Appellate Division, with Orange Products as the appellee.
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 the shop right rule bar an employee's quantum meruit claim for compensation for valuable business suggestions when the employer made an express promise to financially remunerate employees for such suggestions?
Opinions:
Majority - Michels, P.J.A.D.
No. The shop right rule does not bar an employee's quantum meruit claim where the employer has made an express promise to pay for valuable suggestions. To establish a claim for quantum meruit, a plaintiff must show that the defendant received a benefit from the plaintiff, that retaining the benefit without payment would be unjust, and that the plaintiff expected remuneration when conferring the benefit. Here, genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether Kopin's suggestions were outside his normal job duties, whether he reasonably expected extra compensation based on the owners' promise, and whether Orange Products was unjustly enriched. The shop right rule, which grants an employer a non-exclusive license to use an employee's invention developed with company resources, is an equitable doctrine that does not apply when the parties have an express agreement for compensation. The owners' promise to 'financially remunerate' employees for useful suggestions constitutes such an agreement, thereby precluding the application of the shop right rule as a matter of law and allowing Kopin's quantum meruit claim to proceed.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the limits of the shop right rule by establishing that an employer's express promise of compensation, even if indefinite as to the amount, can create a basis for a quasi-contractual claim. It prevents employers from using the shop right rule as an absolute defense after soliciting and benefiting from employee innovations under a promise of reward. This precedent empowers employees by allowing them to proceed to trial to prove the reasonable value of their contributions in the absence of a formal, specific contract, thereby promoting fairness in the employer-employee relationship regarding intellectual contributions.
