Shah v. Cover-It, Inc.
86 Conn. App. 71, 859 A.2d 959, 2004 Conn. App. LEXIS 497 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A total or material breach of an employment contract by one party relieves the other, non-breaching party of any further duty to perform its obligations under the contract.
Facts:
- On November 12, 1997, Khalid Shah entered into a five-year employment contract with Cover-It, Inc. to serve as its structural engineering manager.
- The contract provided for a flexible 35-hour work week, three weeks of paid vacation after one year, and stipulated that if Cover-It terminated the contract, Shah would receive scheduled post-termination salary payments.
- In June 1998, Shah requested and received permission from his supervisor, Brian Goldwitz, for a vacation that was understood to last for several weeks.
- Shah did not return to work until early September 1998, having been absent for approximately ten weeks.
- Upon his return, Shah worked only two or three days per week, spent significant time visiting non-work-related websites, and refused to use the company's time clock to document his hours.
- On October 14, 1998, when Goldwitz inquired about the completion status of certain designs, Shah responded that he was unsure and would 'take his time' in completing them.
- Immediately following this conversation, Goldwitz terminated Shah's employment.
Procedural Posture:
- Khalid Shah (plaintiff) filed a lawsuit against Cover-It, Inc., and Brian Goldwitz (defendants) in the trial court on October 6, 1999.
- Shah later filed a fourteen-count amended complaint, alleging breach of contract and other claims.
- The defendants filed an answer and a two-count counterclaim against Shah.
- Following a trial to the court, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of the defendants on all of the plaintiff's claims.
- The trial court also rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff on the defendants' counterclaim, finding the defendants had failed to prove damages.
- The plaintiff, Khalid Shah, appealed the trial court's judgment 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:
Does an employee's cumulative conduct, including taking an unauthorized ten-week vacation, subsequently working only two or three days per week, misusing company time on non-work-related websites, refusing to use a time clock, and expressing an intention to delay work, constitute a material breach of the employment contract, thereby excusing the employer from its post-termination payment obligations?
Opinions:
Majority - Schaller, J.
Yes. An employee's cumulative conduct can constitute a material breach of an employment contract, which excuses the employer from its post-termination payment obligations. The court determines whether a breach is material by applying the multi-factor test from the Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 241, which considers the totality of the circumstances. Here, Shah's extended and unauthorized vacation, his subsequent failure to work a full schedule, his refusal to follow company policy regarding timekeeping, and his stated intention to delay completion of his duties deprived Cover-It of the benefit it reasonably expected from the contract. This pattern of conduct constituted a material breach, relieving Cover-It of its contractual obligation to make post-termination salary payments.
Analysis:
This case demonstrates that a material breach of contract does not require the violation of a single, explicit contractual term but can arise from a series of actions that, when viewed cumulatively, undermine the core purpose of the agreement. The court's application of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 241 factors solidifies this totality-of-the-circumstances approach to determining materiality in employment disputes. This decision reinforces the principle that a party who materially breaches a contract cannot then sue to enforce the other party's obligations, as the initial breach excuses subsequent performance by the non-breaching party.
Unlock the full brief for Shah v. Cover-It, Inc.