Could This Be A Breach Of Contract??

[faithnlve]

What is the name of your state? vt Here is a question. If I was hired as an "at will" employee, as it stated in my handbook, and along with signing all my paperwork for being hired, I signed company policy agreements, etc. If the employer violates Title VII could that be a breach of contract since you sign your signature and agree to all company policy, yet company did not. Thanks Faith

 

[seniorjudge]

What is the name of your state? vt Here is a question. If I was hired as an "at will" employee, as it stated in my handbook, and along with signing all my paperwork for being hired, I signed company policy agreements, etc. If the employer violates Title VII could that be a breach of contract since you sign your signature and agree to all company policy, yet company did not. Thanks Faith

A contract requires the signing by two parties.

Where is the contract in your question?

 

[faithnlve]

When hired the company had me agree and sign the company handbook, and corporate guidelines which were outlined specifically in regards to employee conduct and so on. The employer wrote up these guidelines and had all employees sign.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

When hired the company had me agree and sign the company handbook, and corporate guidelines which were outlined specifically in regards to employee conduct and so on. The employer wrote up these guidelines and had all employees sign.

Which simply means you have read the guidelines. It was NOT a contract.

 

[mlane58]

What is the name of your state? vt Here is a question. If I was hired as an "at will" employee, as it stated in my handbook, and along with signing all my paperwork for being hired, I signed company policy agreements, etc. If the employer violates Title VII could that be a breach of contract since you sign your signature and agree to all company policy, yet company did not. Thanks Faith

Employee handbooks are really just codifications of the employer’s policies and are not intended to create binding contracts between employers and employees. The handbooks inform employees about general policies and procedures, safety concerns, and mundane issues such as when paychecks can be expected and how employees may apply for time off. Handbooks also serve to direct the company’s vision for its customers, steering the workforce towards the company’s goals. They also serve to ward off litigation by encouraging equal, consistent treatment of employees on issues such as drug testing, medical checkups, discrimination, and sexual harassment. Personnel manuals will make it clear to employees that the employees must comply with all Federal, State, and local laws and regulations.

 

[tranquility]

In, Dillon v. Champion Jogbra, Inc., 819 A.2d 703 (Vt. 12/27/2002) the employee manual of Champion said at the beginning:

"The policies and procedures contained in this manual constitute guidelines only. They do not constitute part of an employment contract, nor are they intended to make any commitment to any employee concerning how individual employment action can, should, or will be handled." Which is pretty much what all the advice has said so far.

However, the Court of Appeals determined in reversing the summary judgment against the plaintiff's claim that the manual was a contract worked through a long list of cases which basically said that the more specific the manual, the more likely it could be found to be a contract. They held, "In conclusion, the manual itself is at the very least ambiguous regarding employees' status, and Jogbra's employment practices appear from the record to be both consistent with the manual and inconsistent with an at-will employment arrangement. Therefore, summary judgment was not proper on Dillon's breach of implied contract claim."

As to your specific question, you did not provide enough facts to determine if it could be a contract on this issue or if the question would go to a jury. See an attorney who can guide you.

 

[mitousmom]

What document did both you and your employer sign that stated that the employer would not violate Title VII?

 

[tranquility]

mitousmom wrote:
"What document did both you and your employer sign that stated that the employer would not violate Title VII?"

What is the point of this question?

Just for the sake of argument, let's pretend there was a written agreement between the OP and the company that the company would not violate Title VII. It is signed by the OP and the president of the company and witnessed by videotape which is then beamed to the world. After viewing, the news media go to the president and ask him about it. He proudly proclaims that he did and the entire board of directors of the company, in a seperate statement, say they stand behind the word of the president.

Is there a contract?

It depends on if the company has to comply with title VII or not doesn't it? If they do, there is no contract as they didn't put up any consideration. Signing has nothing to do with it.

 

[mitousmom]

In the context OP describes the consideration is the exchange of pay for services provided. However, I seriously doubt that she and her employer signed a contract or document which contained a provision that the employer would not violate Title VII. A violation of Title VII can only be a breach of a contract, if there was a valid contract in which the employer specifically promised not to violate Title VII. Otherwise, if there is no such contract, for employers covered by Title VII, a violation of Title VII is simply a violation of that law. And, she is going to have to use the mechanisms created by Title VII to obtain a remedy for the alleged violation.

 

[faithnlve]

The company had a handbook yes. But, the company also had another 20 pages other than the handbook which included conduct guidelines, company non-compete, company trade information, company diversity, company harassment policy other than the state law, business ethics outside the company, and other pages to read. At the end of reading this long drawn out paper we had to sign in agreement. The handbook was seperate it was a hard cover book given to each employee. Also, we had to take extreme math tests and pass them in order to become employed. The handbook mentioned the "at will" employment, but the other paper work did not. Since the company had regulated policy and guidelines and sexual harassment and diversity is in this paperwork wouldn't that be a signed contract between the company and the employee if it was a requirement of signature? Thanks Faith

 

[mitousmom]

Since the company had regulated policy and guidelines and sexual harassment and diversity is in this paperwork wouldn't that be a signed contract between the company and the employee if it was a requirement of signature? Thanks Faith

No. None of that equates to a valid contract.

 

[tranquility]

You have a pre-existing duty to not violate the law. An agreement to do, what you already must do cannot form consideration. Employment is not usually under the statute of frauds so would not need a writing signed by the party the contract would be enforced against. An agreement is all that is needed. If an employer gave a prepared document that went into all the duties and responsibilities of each party and had the employee sign it, I bet I could prove there was a meeting of the minds. If I tried to enforce it, what would be the employer's defense?

I still see no use to the question regarding the employer's signature.