Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Name
Institution
Date
CRITICAL THINKING 2
The issue in the case is whether specific terms in the company’s employment manual
could be contractually binding to the company. The holding in the case in context is that with the
absence of a clear and prominent disclaimer, then the implied promise contained in the
company’s employment manual, that the employee will be fired from the company only for
cause may be deemed enforceable against the employer (Freedland et al., 2016). The condition
applies even if the employment term is indefinite and the employer can otherwise terminate the
employment at will. The argument advanced regarding the Woolley v. Hoffman-LaRoche case is
that if the company as the employer had made it mandatory for the employees to sign a
document citing that they had read and understood the terms stipulated in the manual of
but when he was subsequently fired, he sued for breach of contract. The terms of the contract
imply that Woolley could not be fired at will, rather only for cause, and only when the
procedures that had been outlined in the manual had been dully adhered to. As guided by the tort
law, the employment manual in context does not seem to fulfil the condition of being legally
binding on Woolley’s case, thus he could be terminated from his employment at the will of his
employer (Mayer et al., 2012). The employer had not made the employees sign a document
citing that they had read and understood the terms implied in the contract, thus the employment
at will provision would change in this case. The issue in the case is on whether the implied terms
in the company’s manual may be contractually binding to the employer. If the employee had read
and understood the provisions in the contract, then they would have had a better perception
References
Freedland, M., Bogg, A., Cabrelli, D., Collins, H., Countouris, N., Davies, A. C. L., ... & Prassl,
Mayer, D., Warner, M., Siedel, G., and Lieberman, S. (2012). The law, sales and marketing.