Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Implied Renewal Of Employment Agreements
Employers frequently enter into employment agreements with their employees for a fixed period of time at a stated annual salary. What happens if, at the end of such an agreement's term, both parties continue to perform under the expired employment agreement as if the agreement were still in effect?
Perhaps the parties have negotiated, but not consummated, an extension or new agreement. Under these circumstances, employers might think that, because the em-ployment agreement has expired, the employment relationship converts to 'employment-at-will,' and thus either the employer or the employee may terminate the relationship at any time for any lawful reason.
As we discuss in this article, in a majority of states, there are certain circumstances in which a court may presume the employment agreement is automatically re-newed for an additional term. In such states, courts have recognized such implied renewals and have permitted employees to sue for breach of contract based upon a theory of discharge without cause during the renewal term. We also analyze how courts have addressed the enforceability of non-competition or arbitration agreements following termination of employment after expiration of the original agreement, but during a period when an impliedly renewed agreement is in effect. Finally, we explore several considerations for drafting employment agreements to avoid unexpected results arising from the presumption of implied renewal.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.