Dillon V. Champion Jogbra

Dillon v. Champion Jogbra

1. What were the legal issues in this case? Linda Dillon appeals an order of the superior court granting summary judgment to defendant Champion Jogbra. (Walsh 2010) She worked for Champion, and after she was optimistic in taking a challenging position within the company, and then she was fired for not meeting the expectations. When taking the new position she stated that she was advised that it would take several months to get comfortable with the sales administrator position and Champion would provide training. After about four days of training she was fired without notice. Linda Dillon sued her former employer, Champion Jogbra, claiming that the company did not follow the disciplinary policy as stated in the company handbook. Also the trial court’s summary judgment on her claim of promissory estoppels was incorrect. Champion stated that Dillon was an at-will employee, who could be terminated at any time, but nothing in the employee handbook states that policy. (Walsh 2010) Champion pointed out a well-known disclaimer in the employee handbook, which stated: "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.” (Walsh 2010) The court detained the discipline policy in the employee handbook, and stated that the disclaimer does not construct a contract. In addition, the court stated that the discipline system set out in the handbook was contradictory with both the disclaimer language in the handbook and the at-will employment relationship, and the discipline policy sent different messages to employees and could make an indirect agreement to Champion’s employees. The trial court’s grant of summary judgment was correct for the promissory estoppels claim. The plaintiff’s did breach the contract, and the claim case was sent back to the lower court for additional determination.

2. Explain what the implied contract was in this case. It’s a wrongful discharge claim that restricts employer’s right to terminate. The implied contract in this case the written statements in the handbook were contradicting with the at-will employment relationship and the disclaimer language. Second, the conduct and oral statements from the employer were given gave the employee reason to believe that her job was safe. The oral statement made by the employer was “it will take you four to six months to feel comfortable with position” (Walsh 2010) which gave the impression that she would have that time to settle in with the new job before being evaluated on performance. The employer breached the implied oral contract because in less than two months Dillon was terminated from that position in which the employer stated that it was not working out. The written contact,