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? 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 renewed 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 noncompetition 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.
- February 28, 2006Jeffrey S. Klein and Nicholas J. Pappas
Everything contained in this issue, for quick reference.
February 28, 2006ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.
February 28, 2006ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |Expert commentary on the latest court rulings.
February 28, 2006ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |Analysis of recent decisions.
February 28, 2006ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |Under New York law, the doctrine of caveat emptor, or buyer beware, applies to the purchase and sale of real property. Stambovsky v. Ackley, 169 AD2d 254, 257. Under this doctrine, which has undergone some recent modifications, the seller of real property is under no duty to speak (ie, make certain disclosures to the purchaser) concerning the condition of the property when the parties deal at arms' length. Id. Mere silence on the part of the seller concerning a defective or otherwise undesirable condition of the property, without some act or conduct that deceived the purchaser, does not amount to conduct that is actionable as a fraud.
February 28, 2006Michael Gordon and Diane da CunhaRecent rulings you need to know.
February 28, 2006ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |It is not uncommon in Family and Supreme Court matters for a moment to come in the court proceedings when, having been asked for the basis of a particular forensic opinion, the forensic evaluator utters the famous words, "Well, based on my clinical experience ... " In addition, it is commonly assumed among legal professionals that one good way of supporting a forensic evaluator's assertions is to amplify for the court the number of years of clinical experience a particular expert has had, the number of evaluations he or she has completed, etc. However, the sobering reality is that decades of research on clinical judgment accuracy raise questions about the weight that should be given to how experienced a particular clinician is.
February 28, 2006Jeffrey P. WittmannCommissioner John B. Mattingly of New York City's Administration for Children's Services (ACS) recently issued a statement following the occasion of his 1-year anniversary at his post. Among the accomplishments trumpeted was the fact that his agency had "continued the historic decline in the number of New York City children living in foster care -- passing the 20,000 mark, the 19,000 mark, and the 18,000 mark, to the current census of nearly 17,300." Following publicity surrounding the recent deaths of several children in their homes after their families came under ACS's scrutiny -- some of them reunited with those families after initially having been taken away and others who arguably should have been separated from their families
February 28, 2006Janice G. InmanThe seminal modern case on marital contracts is Christian v. Christian, 42 NY2d 63 (1977). In that case, which involved a post-marital separation agreement, the Court of Appeals held that such agreements that are regular on their face should be binding and valid unless shown to be otherwise, but may be set aside if grounds are demonstrated which would serve to vitiate an ordinary contract. Judicial review in this regard was to be "exercised circumspectly, sparingly and with a persisting view" toward encouraging parties to settle their disputes ...
February 28, 2006Lee Rosenberg