Posts tagged with "contract"

Court Enforces Non-Compete Agreement for Niche Water Purification Company

KX Industries, L.P. v. Saaski, 1997 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2444
Case Background

Mr. Bruce Saaski worked for KX Industries, L.P., a manufacturer and distributor of solid carbon block water filters, from December 1993 to April 24, 1996, as the company’s Technical Support Manager.  His employment contract with KXI contained several restrictive covenants that prohibited him from using or disclosing confidential and proprietary information without the prior written consent of KXI, maintaining personal copies of the company’s confidential information, or working for an industry competitor.  The “industry competitor” restriction applied for one year after Mr. Saaski’s termination but the covenants pertaining to KXI’s confidential information were indefinite.

Mr. Saaski terminated his employment with KXI and began to work at Water Safety, a direct competitor, shortly thereafter.  Additionally, he failed to return copies of confidential information to KXI’s management upon his termination.  KXI sued Ms. Saaski for violation of the non-compete agreement he signed as part of his employment contract and sought a court injunction to enforce its provisions.  Ms. Saaski presented several arguments to the court as to why the agreement was not valid or enforceable.

The court rejected his assertions however and found in favor of KXI, granting their request for enforcement of the non-compete and confidentiality covenants. Mr. Saaski attacked the non-compete on the basis that its lacked consideration, arguing that there existed a prior employment agreement obligating KXI to employ him for a two-year period.

The Court’s Decision

The court held that Mr. Saaski did not present adequate evidence to prove the existence of a prior employment agreement and pointed to the language of the December 1993 agreement to show that Mr. Saaski gave consideration for the agreement when he agreed to the restrictive covenants contained therein. Furthermore, Mr. Saaski contended that the restrictions were unreasonable because they were overly broad in scope, specifically referring to the prohibition on working for a company “similar to” or in “competition with” KXI.

To determine if this language was in fact overly broad the court heard testimony from KXI’s Chief Executive Officer where he stated that there were only four competitors that the non-compete applied to: Honeywell, Culligan, Multipure, and Water Safety, Mr. Saaski’s new employer.  The court found this to be restricted in scope and not overly broad to disproportionately favor KXI’s interests.  The restriction applied only to a small section of the water purification industry and KXI’s CEO provided a plethora of companies that Mr. Saaski could work for without violating the non-compete agreement.

The court found the overall non-compete and confidentiality covenants to be reasonable and concluded that they did not place excessive restriction on Mr. Saaski’s ability to pursue his occupation and earn a living.  Accordingly, the court found in favor of KXI and enforced the provisions of the non-compete agreement.

 

The lawyers at Maya Murphy, P.C., are experienced and knowledgeable employment and corporate law practitioners and assist clients in New York, Bridgeport, Darien, Fairfield, Greenwich, New Canaan, Norwalk, Stamford, Westport, and elsewhere in Fairfield County.  If you have any questions relating to your non-compete agreement or would like to discuss any element of your employment agreement, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq. by phone at (203) 221-3100 or via e-mail at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Two-Prong Test for Temporary Injunction for Breach of Non-Solicitation Agreement

Integrated Corporate Relations, Inc. v. Bidz, Inc., 2009 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2212
Case Background

Integrated Corporate Relations, Inc. was a Westport-based parties relations and public consulting firm that contracted with Bidz, Inc., a California corporation, to perform various investor relations services.  The agreement between the companies contained a non-solicitation clause that prohibited Bidz from soliciting, hiring, or otherwise engaging any of Integrated’s personnel during the agreement and for one year following its termination.  Integrated stated that this was their standard practice with clients in order to protect its legitimate business interests and the resources it had spent to develop its business model.  It also claimed that it incurs a hardship when an employee leaves because it must find a suitable replacement.

Integrated hired Mr. Andrew Greenebaum in 2003 as an at-will employee at the company’s Los Angeles office to work as a Senior Managing Director where he was the primary manager of Bidz’s account.  Mr. Greenebaum worked in this capacity until his resignation on February 27, 2009 at which point he founded his own company, Addo Communications, Inc. with another former Integrated employee.  Bidz terminated its business relationship with Integrated on March 30, 2009 and shortly thereafter contracted with Mr. Greenebaum and Addo for investor relations services.

Granting Temporary Injunction

Integrated sued Bidz when it learned of this new business relationship and claimed that Bidz had violated the non-solicitation agreement in their contract.  The company requested equitable relief and called for the enforcement of the restrictive covenant.  Integrated requested a temporary injunction while the case was being decided in order to prevent further violations of the agreement.  The court’s holding in this case pertains to the issue of whether to grant a temporary injunction.

The court outlined that the primary purpose of a temporary injunction is to “preserve the status quo until the rights of the parties can be finally determined after a hearing on the merits”.  Connecticut courts will generally grant temporary injunctions when the moving party: 1) demonstrates “it is likely to succeed on the merits of its case” and 2) that it will “suffer immediate and irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted”.  The court concluded that Integrated failed to meet either of these requirements and denied the company’s request for a temporary injunction.

The Court’s Decision

The court concluded that Integrated lacked a meritorious claim regarding a breach of the employment contract by Bidz contracting with one of its former employees.  The non-solicitation agreement in question is one between a consulting company and a client, not between a company and its employee(s).  Integrated failed to present any case from any jurisdiction in the United States where a court recognized this business arrangement as an interest that warranted legal protection.

This, according to this court, meant that Integrated lacked a legitimate business interest that a temporary injunction would be necessary to protect.  Additionally, Integrated failed to present evidence that Bidz had actually “solicited” Mr. Greenebaum and purposefully induced him to terminate his employment with Integrated.  The court used these two factors to hold that that Integrated would most likely not succeed on the merits of its case.

Conclusions

The facts of the case also led the court to conclude that Integrated would not experience imminent and irreparable harm if it failed to issue an injunction.  The court held that this was requisite for granting a temporary injunction and commented “Connecticut law supports a distinctly moderated level of proof required to establish the elements of irreparable harm”.  Even though Connecticut courts require only a “moderated level of proof”, the moving party must demonstrate some degree of imminent, irreparable harm.  The only loss that Integrated could demonstrate was that two employees terminated their employment and started their own company.  They were both at-will employees however and could have done so at any point in time, regardless of Bidz’s action.

In conclusion, the court held that Integrated failed to meet the requirements that would warrant a temporary injunction against Bidz to prevent it from transacting with Mr. Greenebaum and his company Addo.

The lawyers at Maya Murphy, P.C., are experienced and knowledgeable employment and corporate law practitioners and assist clients in New York, Bridgeport, Darien, Fairfield, Greenwich, New Canaan, Norwalk, Stamford, Westport, and elsewhere in Fairfield County.  If you have any questions relating to your non-compete agreement or would like to discuss any element of your employment agreement, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq. by phone at (203) 221-3100 or via e-mail at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Court Enforces Non-Compete for Breach Within the Courier Services Industry

Express Courier Systems, Inc. v. Brown, 2006 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3784

Express Courier Systems, Inc. was a company that provided courier services to large hospitals, laboratories, and other medical facilities throughout New England, New York, and New Jersey.  The company provided high-efficiency route planning, dispatch services, monitored courier performance, and analyzed customer feedback.  One of the company’s biggest accounts was with Stamford Hospital with whom it had a contract since 2000.  Express Courier generally recruited its couriers through Contractor Management Services, LLC (CMS), an independent third-party human resources firm. Express Courier employed Misters Seymour Brown, Chip Joseph, and Moses Stephenson as independent contractors from 1999, 2002, and 2005 respectively, as couriers in connection with its contract with Stamford Hospital.

Violating the Employment Agreements

In December 2005, the company required that these employees register and become members of CMS if they wished to continue to provide services as independent contractors.  As part of the registration process with CMS to continue their employment with Express Courier, the three employees signed non-compete agreements that prohibited them from working at a company providing the same or similar services within the “Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area of the Eastern Seaboard” to an entity that was a client in the preceding six months for a one-year period following termination.  Additionally, the agreements stated that Express Courier was entitled to injunctive relief in the event of a breach of the non-compete agreements.

Stamford Hospital informed Express Courier in September 2006 that it was terminating its services except for those associated with the hospital’s laboratory.  At the same time, Misters Seymour, Joseph, and Stephenson informed Express Courier that they had accepted positions with Xerox.  The employees said that the offers were “too good to refuse” and that their last days would be September 30, 2006.

All three men began to work for Xerox on October 1, 2006 where their positions were very similar to their previous ones at Express Couriers and they were paid to perform very similar services.  Express Courier saw these actions as clear violations of the non-compete agreements and sued its three former employees in Connecticut state court where it sought an injunction enforcing the provisions of the restrictive covenants.

The Court’s Ruling

All three defendants claimed that their work as Xerox employees was vastly different from the services they provided as Express Courier employees but the court rejected this argument and concluded that they were performing the same services as they had done while still employed by Express Couriers.  The court established that there was a clear breach of the agreements’ provisions but next had to determine if the provisions were in fact reasonable, a requirement for enforcement under Connecticut law.

The restrictive covenants, according to the court provided Express Courier with a reasonable degree of protection while simultaneously not preventing the former employees from securing future employment.  The Eastern Seaboard is a large geographical area but even this restriction was severely limited by only applying to Express Courier’s clients in the six months prior to an employee’s termination.

In light of a clear breach of the non-compete agreements and a finding that they contained reasonable restrictions, the court found in favor of Express Courier and granted the company’s request for injunctions enjoining the former employees from providing services to Stamford Hospital in connection with their new employment with Xerox.

The lawyers at Maya Murphy, P.C., are experienced and knowledgeable employment and corporate law practitioners and assist clients in New York, Bridgeport, Darien, Fairfield, Greenwich, New Canaan, Norwalk, Stamford, Westport, and elsewhere in Fairfield County.  If you have any questions relating to your non-compete agreement or would like to discuss any element of your employment agreement, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq. by phone at (203) 221-3100 or via e-mail at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Enforcing a Non-Compete Agreement in the Connecticut Insurance Industry

Grayling Associates, Inc. v. Villota, 2004 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1859
Case Background

Grayling Associates, Inc., an executive recruiting agency for large national insurance companies, employed Mr. Albert Villota from October 2002 to April 8, 2004.  The parties executed a non compete agreement at the start of Mr. Villota’s employment that prohibited him from working at a competing firm within a one hundred mile radius of Grayling’s Connecticut office for a period of two years after his termination.

He began to work at a direct competitor, Park Avenue Group, Inc. (PAG), after he voluntarily terminated his employment with Grayling.  The company sued Mr. Villota in Connecticut state court and sought the enforcement of the provisions contained in the non-compete agreement.

The Court’s Decision

The court found in favor of Grayling and granted the company’s request for injunctive relief.  It enjoined Ms. Villota from working at PAG or other companies in competition with Grayling until April 8, 2006, the end of the two-year period as stipulated in the non-compete agreement.  The court went on to confirm that the time and geographical restrictions in the agreement were reasonable so that they properly balanced the interests of the parties.

The major point of contention in the case focused on the one hundred mile radius restriction.  Grayling was based in Hartford, referred to by many in the business world as the “insurance capital of the world” and as such, the nature of its services was very dependent on its location and proximity to the city.

Many of the nation’s most prominent insurance firms have their headquarters in Hartford and Mr. Villota’s actions within the vicinity of the city could negatively affect Grayling’s business interests and operations.  Grayling noted that the non-compete agreement allowed for the application of the “blue pencil rule” that would allow the court to modify the terms of the geographical restriction.  The court held that the restriction was enforceable as stated in the agreement and enforced the one hundred mile radius provision to protect Grayling’s legitimate interests.

The lawyers at Maya Murphy, P.C., are experienced and knowledgeable employment and corporate law practitioners and assist clients in New York, Bridgeport, Darien, Fairfield, Greenwich, New Canaan, Norwalk, Stamford, Westport, and elsewhere in Fairfield County.  If you have any questions relating to your non-compete agreement or would like to discuss any element of your employment agreement, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq. by phone at (203) 221-3100 or via e-mail at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Accepting Funds from a Charitable Trust may Create a Contract that Cannot be Unilaterally Modified

Blumenthal v. Getraer, CV106007120S, 2011 WL 4953727 (Conn. Super. Ct. Oct. 4, 2011)

In a case before the Superior Court of Connecticut which found that a contract cannot be unilaterally modified, the Attorney General of the State of Connecticut brought a declaratory judgment action to represent the public interest in protecting gifts intended for charitable purposes, pursuant to Connecticut General Statute § 3-125.   The action posed four specific questions to the court regarding a charitable trust that was intended to honor a respected synagogue member and provide funds for capital improvements to the synagogue to which he belonged.

Case Background

In 2002, a respected member of the synagogue passed away, and was survived by his wife and son.  The following year, a charitable foundation in New York City gave the synagogue he attended a gift of $40,000, which was contingent upon the synagogue’s agreement to name its sanctuary after the deceased.  The gift and additional donations of over $100,000 were placed in a memorial fund, which was controlled by the widow and her son.

After receiving the gift, the synagogue erected a plaque over the entrance to the sanctuary declaring that it was named in honor of the deceased.  At the synagogue’s next board of directors meeting, the widow offered, on behalf of the memorial fund, to give the money in the fund to the synagogue with the restriction that it be used only for capital improvements and not ordinary expenses.  The widow and the son would act as the trustees of the fund and disburse monies for capital improvements at their absolute discretion.  The board of directors approved the arrangement.

The Dispute

A dispute later arose between the widow and her son, and the board of directors.  The widow and her son were dissatisfied because the memorial plaque was covered on several occasions so that it was not visible to people in the synagogue.  For example, during the 110th anniversary celebration of the synagogue, a sign announcing the name of the synagogue was placed over the memorial plaque.  During one Chanukah celebration, decorations were placed over the plaque and left there until July of the following year.

The board of directors was dissatisfied because the widow and her son stopped paying for capital improvements.  The board of directors that approved the arrangement with the widow and her son was dismissed and replaced with a new board.  This new board of directors voted to request the widow and her son to turn control of the fund over to the synagogue.

Court Finds Existence of a Contract

In an action seeking declaratory judgment, the sole function of the trial court is to ascertain the rights of the parties under existing law.  Ginsberg v. Post, 177 Conn. 610, 616 (1979).  Four specific questions were posed to the court to determine the rights of the trustees and the rights of the synagogue.

Prior to addressing these questions, the court found that a contract had been formed between the fund and the synagogue based on the synagogue’s acceptance of monies from the fund and other actions taken by the synagogue board of directors.  Therefore, the court found that the vote by the new board of directors had no legal significance because they could not unilaterally change the terms of the previous contract with the widow and her son.

Trial Outcome

Based on finding the existence of a contract, the court determined that the widow and her son were entitled to continue to control the fund and act as its trustees.  However, the court also found that equity required them, in their capacity as trustees, to reimburse the synagogue for the capital expenditures made in reasonable reliance on the agreement that the fund would pay for capital improvements.  The trustees had discretion to determine what constituted a capital improvement.

The fund was also required to continue to pay for capital improvements, on the condition that the memorial plaque was visible to all who would be able to see it.  The court ordered that the memorial plaque not be covered and, if it was, that would constitute a breach of contract on the part of the synagogue.  In that event, the widow and son would be free to terminate the trust and the fund, and either return the money to the donors or use it for other charitable purposes at their discretion.

Finally, the court suggested that the fund cease soliciting further donations and allow the remaining monies to be depleted to that the relationship between the parties could be terminated.

Should you have any questions relating to charitable trusts or other personal asset protection issues, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Susan Maya, at SMaya@Mayalaw.com or 203-221-3100, and Attorney Russell Sweeting, at RSweeting@Mayalaw.com or 203-221-3100, in the Maya Murphy office in Westport, Fairfield County, Connecticut.

Accepting Funds from a Charitable Trust may Create a Contract that Cannot be Unilaterally Modified

In a case before the Superior Court of Connecticut, the Attorney General of the State of Connecticut brought a declaratory judgment action to represent the public interest in protecting gifts intended for charitable purposes, pursuant to Connecticut General Statute § 3-125.   The action posed four specific questions to the court regarding a charitable trust that was intended to honor a respected synagogue member and provide funds for capital improvements to the synagogue to which he belonged.

In 2002, a respected member of the synagogue passed away, and was survived by his wife and son.  The following year, a charitable foundation in New York City gave the synagogue he attended a gift of $40,000 which was contingent upon the synagogue’s agreement to name its sanctuary after the deceased.  The gift and additional donations of over $100,000 were placed in a memorial fund, which was controlled by the widow and her son.  After receiving the gift, the synagogue erected a plaque over the entrance to the sanctuary declaring that it was named in honor of the deceased.  At the synagogue’s next board of directors meeting, the widow offered, on behalf of the memorial fund, to give the money in the fund to the synagogue with the restriction that it be used only for capital improvements and not ordinary expenses.  The widow and the son would act as the trustees of the fund and disburse monies for capital improvements at their absolute discretion.  The board of directors approved the arrangement.

A dispute later arose between the widow and her son, and the board of directors.  The widow and her son were dissatisfied because the memorial plaque was covered on several occasions so that it was not visible to people in the synagogue.  For example, during the 110th anniversary celebration of the synagogue, a sign announcing the name of the synagogue was placed over the memorial plaque.  During one Chanukah celebration, decorations were placed over the plaque and left there until July of the following year. The board of directors was dissatisfied because the widow and her son stopped paying for capital improvements.  The board of directors that approved the arrangement with the widow and her son was dismissed and replaced with a new board.  This new board of directors voted to request the widow and her son to turn control of the fund over to the synagogue.

In an action seeking declaratory judgment, the sole function of the trial court is to ascertain the rights of the parties under existing law.  Ginsberg v. Post, 177 Conn. 610, 616 (1979).  Four specific questions were posed to the court to determine the rights of the trustees and the rights of the synagogue.  Prior to addressing these questions, the court found that a contract had been formed between the fund and the synagogue based on the synagogue’s acceptance of monies from the fund and other actions taken by the synagogue board of directors.  Therefore, the court found that the vote by the new board of directors had no legal significance because they could not unilaterally change the terms of the previous contract with the widow and her son.

Based on finding the existence of a contract, the court determined that the widow and her son were entitled to continue to control the fund and act as its trustees.  However, the court also found that equity required them, in their capacity as trustees, to reimburse the synagogue for the capital expenditures made in reasonable reliance on the agreement that the fund would pay for capital improvements.  The trustees had discretion to determine what constituted a capital improvement.  The fund was also required to continue to pay for capital improvements, on the condition that the memorial plaque was visible to all who would be able to see it.  The court ordered that the memorial plaque not be covered and, if it was, that would constitute a breach of contract on the part of the synagogue.  In that event, the widow and son would be free to terminate the trust and the fund, and either return the money to the donors or use it for other charitable purposes at their discretion.  Finally, the court suggested that the fund cease soliciting further donations and allow the remaining monies to be depleted to that the relationship between the parties could be terminated.

Should you have any questions relating to charitable trusts or other personal asset protection issues, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Susan Maya, at SMaya@Mayalaw.com or 203-221-3100, and Attorney Russell Sweeting, at RSweeting@Mayalaw.com or 203-221-3100, in the Maya Murphy office in Westport, Fairfield County, Connecticut.

Blumenthal v. Getraer, CV106007120S, 2011 WL 4953727 (Conn. Super. Ct. Oct. 4, 2011)

What is a Pre-Need Funeral Services Contract?

A pre-need funeral services contract allows an individual to set aside funds, before his or her death, to be used specifically to pay for funeral expenses. Under the terms of such a contract, a “purchaser” signs the contract and advances funds, which are held in an escrow account for the purpose of paying for future funeral services for the “beneficiary” upon his or her demise. See C.G.S. §42-202. A pre-need funeral services contract may only be sold by a funeral director licensed by the public health commissioner. See C.G.S. §42-201.

There are strict requirements for such contracts under Connecticut law. For example, funeral services contracts must be in writing, and must contain the following:

(1) The name, address, telephone number and Social Security number of the beneficiary and the purchaser;

(2) The name, address, telephone number and license number of the funeral director for the funeral service establishment providing the goods or services;

(3) A list of the selected goods or services, if any;

(4) The amount of funds paid or to be paid by the purchaser for such contract, the method of payment and a description of how such funds will be invested and how such investments are limited to those authorized pursuant to subsection (c) of section 42-202;

(5) A description of any price guarantees by the funeral service establishment or, if there are no such guarantees, a specific statement that the contract contains no guarantees on the price of the goods or services contained in the contract;

(6) The name and address of the escrow agent designated to hold the prepaid funeral services funds;

(7) A written representation, in clear and conspicuous type, that the purchaser should receive a notice from the escrow agent acknowledging receipt of the initial deposit not later than twenty-five days after receipt of such deposit by a licensed funeral director;

(8) A description of any fees to be paid from the escrow account to the escrow agent or any third party provider;

(9) A description of the ability of the purchaser or the beneficiary to cancel a revocable funeral service contract and the effect of cancelling such contract;

(10) For irrevocable contracts, a description of the ability of the beneficiary to transfer such contract to another funeral home; and

(11) The signature of the purchaser or authorized representative and the licensed funeral director of the funeral service establishment.

See C.G.S. §42-200(b). A funeral services contract must also contain a statement that if the particular merchandise provided for in the contract is not available at the time of death, the funeral service establishment will furnish merchandise similar in style and at least equal in quality of material and workmanship to the merchandise provided for in the contract.  See C.G.S. §42-202(g). Funeral services contracts should not be confused with burial insurance policies, which are separately codified in the Connecticut General Statutes, under Section 38a-464.

For further information on pre-need funeral services contracts in Connecticut, see Chapter 743C of the Connecticut General Statutes. The General Statutes can be found online at: http://www.cga.ct.gov/. Additional information is available in the State of Connecticut’s Office of Legal Research Report on pre-need funeral services contracts online at: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0578.htm.

Contractual Rights for Teachers: An Overview

Contracts for School Teachers

The law of contracts applies to contracts between teachers and school districts. This law includes the concepts of offer, acceptance, mutual assent, and consideration. For a teacher to determine whether a contract exists, he or she should consult authority on the general law of contracts. This section focuses on contract laws specific to teaching and education.

Ratification of Contracts by School Districts

Even if a school official offers a teacher a job and the teacher accepts this offer, many state laws require that the school board ratify the contract before it becomes binding. Thus, even if a principal of a school district informs a prospective teacher that the teacher has been hired, the contract is not final until the school district accepts or ratifies the contract. The same is true if a school district fails to follow proper procedures when determining whether to ratify a contract.

Teacher’s Handbook as a Contract

Some teachers have argued successfully that provisions in a teacher’s handbook granted the teacher certain contractual rights. However, this is not common, as many employee handbooks include clauses stating that the handbook is not a contract. For a provision in a handbook to be legally binding, the teacher must demonstrate that the actions of the teacher and the school district were such that the elements for creating a contract were met.

Breach of Teacher Contract

Either a teacher or a school district can breach a contract. Whether a breach has occurred depends on the facts of the case and the terms of the contract. Breach of contract cases between teachers and school districts arise because a school district has terminated the employment of a teacher, even though the teacher has not violated any of the terms of the employment agreement. In several of these cases, a teacher has taken a leave of absence, which did not violate the employment agreement, and the school district terminated the teacher due to the leave of absence. Similarly, a teacher may breach a contract by resigning from the district before the end of the contract term (usually the end of the school year).

Remedies for Breach of Contract

The usual remedy for a breach of contract between a school district and a teacher is monetary damages. If a school district has breached a contract, the teacher will usually receive the amount the teacher would have received under the contract, less the amount the teacher receives (or could receive) by attaining alternative employment. Other damages, such as the cost to the teacher in finding other employment, may also be available. Non-monetary remedies, such as a court requiring a school district to rehire a teacher or to comply with contract terms, are available in some circumstances, though courts are usually hesitant to order such remedies. If a teacher breaches a contract, damages may be the cost to the school district for finding a replacement. Many contracts contain provisions prescribing the amount of damages a teacher must pay if he or she terminates employment before the end of the contract.

If you feel you have been mistreated by your employer or in your place of employment and would like to explore your employment law options, contact the experienced employment law attorneys today at 203-221-3100, or by email at JMaya@mayalaw.com. We have the experience and knowledge you need at this critical juncture. We serve clients in both New York and Connecticut including New Canaan, Bridgeport, White Plains, and Darien.

This case was not handled by our firm. However, if you have any questions regarding this case, or any employment law matter, please contact Joseph Maya at 203-221-3100 or by email at JMaya@MayaLaw.com.


Source: FindLaw

***All posts for the MayaLaw.com blog are created as a public service for the community. This case overview is intended for informational purposes only, and is not a solicitation of any client.***

Q: Does my Employer Have to Give me Two Weeks Notice that I am Being Laid off?

Generally, your employer does not have an obligation to give you notice before a termination or layoff, or even to a change of control in the company.  However, there are many exceptions to this generalization.   For example, if you are a member of a union your contract probably requires a period of notice before a layoff.  Depending on the circumstances of your case, an exception may apply that may make you eligible for notice from your employer.  It would be best to consult an attorney with experience in employment law to review the facts of your case and your employment contract to determine definitively if notice was required.

If you have any questions related to employment law in Connecticut, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq. at (203) 221-3100 or e-mail him directly at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.