Roth v. Speck

Municipal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
126 A.2d 153 (1956)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The measure of damages for an employee's breach of an employment contract is the cost of obtaining equivalent services, which can be evidenced by the higher salary the employee receives from a new employer for the same services.

Facts:

On April 15, 1955, a beauty salon owner (plaintiff) hired a hairdresser (defendant) under a one-year written contract.
The contract guaranteed the defendant a salary of $75 per week or a 50% commission on his gross receipts, whichever was greater.
The defendant was an exceptionally skilled hairdresser who quickly developed a strong client following.
Approximately six and a half months into the contract, the defendant quit his job, citing unbearable working conditions.
Immediately after leaving, the defendant secured employment at another salon for a weekly salary of $100.
The plaintiff struggled to find a satisfactory replacement, hiring two subsequent hairdressers who performed at a loss to the business.

Procedural Posture:

The plaintiff (employer) filed a lawsuit against the defendant (employee) in the trial court for breach of contract.
Following a trial, the court found for the plaintiff but awarded only $1 in nominal damages.
The plaintiff (appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment on the amount of damages to the intermediate appellate 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:

When an employee breaches an employment contract, is the higher salary received by that employee in a subsequent job sufficient evidence to establish the employer's actual damages, measured as the difference between the original contract salary and the new salary?

Opinions:

Majority - Quinn, Associate Judge

Yes. When an employee breaches an employment contract, the higher salary they earn in a new position is presumptive evidence of the market value of their services and can be used to calculate the original employer's damages. The primary measure of damages is the cost to the employer of obtaining equivalent services. While the plaintiff's claim for lost profits was too speculative due to contingencies like seasonal business and customer assignments, the defendant's new salary provides a clear measure of damages. The defendant, having secured a new job at $100 per week, demonstrated that the market value of his services was higher than his guaranteed contract wage of $75 per week. Therefore, the plaintiff's damages are the difference between these two amounts ($25 per week) for the remainder of the contract term. The burden shifts to the defendant, as the breaching party, to prove any facts that might mitigate this amount, such as that his commission would have exceeded his guaranteed salary.

Analysis:

This case provides a practical and clear method for calculating an employer's damages when a skilled employee breaches an employment contract. It moves away from the often speculative and difficult-to-prove measure of lost profits. By establishing that the employee's new, higher salary can serve as a presumption of the 'cost of replacement,' the decision simplifies the evidentiary burden for the employer. This precedent gives employers a more direct route to recovering actual damages, rather than being limited to nominal damages, and places the burden on the breaching employee to disprove this measure.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Roth v. Speck (1956)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature