<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>New York Business Litigation Attorney &#124; New York Breach of Contract Attorney &#187; employment contract</title>
	<atom:link href="http://nysmallbusinessattorney.com/tag/employment-contract/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://nysmallbusinessattorney.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 16:20:33 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
		<item>
		<title>How An Improperly Drafted Employment Contract Allowed Employee&#8217;s Claim To Collect Post-Termination Commissions To Survive Dismissal in New York</title>
		<link>http://nysmallbusinessattorney.com/how-an-improperly-drafted-employment-contract-allowed-employees-claim-to-collect-post-termination-commissions-to-survive-dismissal-in-new-york/</link>
		<comments>http://nysmallbusinessattorney.com/how-an-improperly-drafted-employment-contract-allowed-employees-claim-to-collect-post-termination-commissions-to-survive-dismissal-in-new-york/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 17 Jan 2010 16:05:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jonathan Cooper</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Breach of contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[at-will]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[commercial litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unjust enrichment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[at-will employment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[breach of contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business litigation long island]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jonathan cooper]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[new york]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[small business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unpaid commissions]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nysmallbusinessattorney.com/?p=225</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a hot-off-the-presses decision that was handed down this past Thursday, and is scheduled to appear in Tuesday&#8217;s New York Law Journal, New York&#8217;s Appellate Division, First Department (which covers New York and Bronx Counties) reversed that portion of a trial court&#8217;s decision that dismissed a former at-will employee&#8217;s claims under Labor Law §§191 and [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In a hot-off-the-presses decision that was handed down this past Thursday, and is scheduled to appear in Tuesday&#8217;s New York Law Journal, New York&#8217;s Appellate Division, First Department (which covers New York and Bronx Counties) reversed that portion of a trial court&#8217;s decision that dismissed a former at-will employee&#8217;s claims under Labor Law §§191 and 198 and Business Corporation Law §630, holding that although the plaintiff&#8217;s claim for unpaid salary was correctly dismissed (his employment contract allowed management to adjust his salary at their sole discretion), he had sufficiently stated a breach of contract claim for unpaid earned commissions that he &#8220;arranged&#8221; prior to his termination. In particular, the Appellate Court stated as follows:</p>
<p>&#8220;Once the commission is earned, it cannot be forfeited (see Davidson v. Regan Fund Mgt. Ltd., 13 AD3d 117 [2004];<sup>4</sup> Yudell, 248 AD2d 189, supra). There is a long-standing policy against the forfeiture of earned wages, and this applies to earned, uncollected commissions as well (Weiner v. Diebold Group, Inc., 166, 166-167[1991]) &#8230;&#8221;</p>
<p>On the other hand, &#8220;although generally an at-will employee is not entitled to post-termination commissions, the parties are certainly free to provide otherwise in a written agreement.&#8221;</p>
<p>There is another important rule to consider, however. And that is the doctrine of <em>contra proferentem</em>, which states that <strong><em>an employment agreement should be construed against the drafter</em></strong>.  In this case, the Court held that had Management &#8220;meant to foreclose the possibility that plaintiff might earn a post-termination commission on a placement&#8221; arranged by plaintiff, it &#8220;could have said so explicitly.&#8221; And this they clearly failed to do.</p>
<p>The moral of the story is obvious: be <strong><em>very, very careful in drafting your employment agreements.</em></strong>
<p><font color="#B4B4B4" size="-2">Post Footer automatically generated by <a href="http://www.freetimefoto.com/add_post_footer_plugin_wordpress" style="color: #B4B4B4; text-decoration:underline;">Add Post Footer Plugin</a> for wordpress.</font></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://nysmallbusinessattorney.com/how-an-improperly-drafted-employment-contract-allowed-employees-claim-to-collect-post-termination-commissions-to-survive-dismissal-in-new-york/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Employment Contract Cannot Be Implied, New York Federal Court Holds</title>
		<link>http://nysmallbusinessattorney.com/employment-contract-cannot-be-implied-new-york-federal-court-holds/</link>
		<comments>http://nysmallbusinessattorney.com/employment-contract-cannot-be-implied-new-york-federal-court-holds/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Jan 2010 14:41:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jonathan Cooper</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Breach of contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[at-will]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[commercial litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wrongful termination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[breach of contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employee at-will]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jonathan cooper]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[new york]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[new york business litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[new york law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nysmallbusinessattorney.com/?p=218</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In Bernhardt v. Tradition North America, a case very similar to the one we discussed recently in &#8220;Why Whistleblower Protection Clause In Employee Manual May Be Worthless,&#8221; the plaintiff, who was a vice president at defendant Tradition North America Inc., notified the SEC of various securities schemes that he had supposedly uncovered at his company. [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In <a href="http://nycourts.law.com/CourtDocumentViewer.asp?view=Document&amp;docID=119753"><em>Bernhardt v. Tradition North America</em></a>, a case very similar to the one we discussed recently in &#8220;<a href="http://nysmallbusinessattorney.com/why-whistleblower-protection-clause-in-employee-manual-may-be-worthless/">Why Whistleblower Protection Clause In Employee Manual May Be Worthless</a>,&#8221; the plaintiff, who was a vice president at defendant Tradition North America Inc., notified the SEC of various securities schemes that he had supposedly uncovered at his company. Not surprisingly, after he told defendant&#8217;s senior vice president and the company&#8217;s legal department that he had gone to the SEC, he was fired.</p>
<p>In seeking to recover damages for breach of contract and wrongful termination, the plaintiff asserted that he had an implied contract of employment (rather than being a mere &#8220;at will&#8221; employee) because he had been assured &#8220;that [d]efendants would operate the firm, and that [p]laintiff would be permitted to perform his job responsibilities, in accordance with the prevailing laws, rules and regulation of the securities profession.&#8221; In a similar vein, he claimed that since the defendants had made clear that he would be terminated for violating any laws, the defendants thereby impliedly warranted that they would not fire him for upholding those same laws.</p>
<p>As you may have guessed, these arguments didn&#8217;t even make it out of the starting gate; the Court dismissed the complaint without even requiring the defendants to answer the complaint.</p>
<p>And the reason the Court did so is straightforward: not only did the plaintiff fail to overcome the presumption of employment at will, the plaintiff did not produce any writing that limited the defendant&#8217;s right to hire, fire, promote, demote, transfer or take any other employment action it deemed otherwise appropriate.
<p><font color="#B4B4B4" size="-2">Post Footer automatically generated by <a href="http://www.freetimefoto.com/add_post_footer_plugin_wordpress" style="color: #B4B4B4; text-decoration:underline;">Add Post Footer Plugin</a> for wordpress.</font></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://nysmallbusinessattorney.com/employment-contract-cannot-be-implied-new-york-federal-court-holds/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
