Martin v. New York Life Insurance
148 N.Y. 117, 1895 N.Y. LEXIS 749, 42 N.E. 416 (1895)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A general or indefinite hiring, even when compensation is measured at an annual rate, is presumed to be a hiring at will, terminable at any time by either party. The burden is on the employee to prove that the hiring was for a definite term.
Facts:
- In 1881, Martin began working for New York Life Insurance Co. in its real estate department.
- Initially, his salary was $5,000 per year.
- In February 1884, after a prior raise, Martin's salary was increased to the rate of $10,000 per year, payable from January 1, 1884.
- Martin continued to work for the company for several years without any further agreement specifying the duration of his employment.
- On April 13, 1892, Martin received a letter from the company's president notifying him that his services would be terminated as of April 30, 1892.
- A week after an initial reply, Martin sent a second letter claiming his employment was for a full year and that he was entitled to his salary for the remainder of 1892.
Procedural Posture:
- Martin sued New York Life Insurance Co. in a New York trial court to recover his salary for the remainder of the year.
- The defendant, New York Life Insurance Co., appealed the trial court's decision to the General Term (the intermediate appellate court).
- The General Term reversed the trial court's judgment and ordered a new trial.
- The plaintiff, Martin, as the appellant, appealed the General Term's order to the New York Court of Appeals (the state's highest court), stipulating that if the order was affirmed, judgment absolute would be entered against him.
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 a general hiring at a specified annual salary, without a fixed duration, create a contract for a full year of employment?
Opinions:
Majority - Bartlett, J.
No. A general hiring at a specified annual salary does not create a contract for a full year of employment. The court rejected the old English rule that a general hiring implies a hiring for a year, and instead adopted what is now the standard American rule of at-will employment. Under this rule, a hiring with an indefinite term is presumed to be terminable at the will of either party. The court reasoned that stating compensation at an annual rate, such as '$10,000 a year,' is merely a measure of the rate of pay, not a declaration of the contract's duration. The burden of proof is on the employee to establish by evidence that the parties agreed to a fixed term of employment. The court found that Martin had not presented sufficient evidence of an original contract for a yearly hiring, and thus his employment was at will.
Analysis:
This case is a landmark decision in American employment law, firmly establishing the presumption of at-will employment in New York. By rejecting the English rule, the court shifted the legal landscape to favor employer flexibility, making it the default that either party can terminate an employment relationship at any time for any reason, absent a specific contract. This decision places the burden on employees to secure explicit contractual language regarding job duration if they seek protection from termination without cause. The 'at-will' doctrine established here remains the foundation of employment law in most U.S. states.
Unlock the full brief for Martin v. New York Life Insurance