Dillon V. Champion Jogbra

Running head: DILLON V. CHAMPION JOGBRA

Dillon v. Champion Jogbra

Christi Hopkins

Strayer University

Business Employment Law

HRM 510

Dr. Tonya D. Moore

June 09, 2011

Dillon v. Champion Jogbra

Introduction

“Employee handbooks have been found to create binding contracts between the employee and the employer” (Vermont Bar Association, 2002, p. 4). That being said, it is imperative for organizations to understand the implications of the policies they employ and those they have written for employees. An effective employee handbook establishes organizational expectations of employees as well as enables employees to know what they can expect from the organization. The employee handbook should also be clearly defined and free from ambiguities. This paper will look at the case of Dillon v. Champion Jogbra. It will address the legal issue in this case as well as define what the implied contract was and how it was breached by Champion. Finally it will focus on why the at-will disclaimer that Champion stated in its employee manual was ineffective.

Legal Issue

The legal issue in the case of Dillon v. Champion Jogbra stems from an employment policy containing both a progressive disciplinary policy and an at-will disclaimer. The issue then becomes whether an employment policy containing both elements is ambiguous. “Linda Dillon was hired on as a full-time employee in August 1997 in the position of “charge back analyst” (Walsh, 2010, p. 589). Dillon was approached by management in the summer of 1998 to apply for a position as a “sales administrator” that was soon to be vacant. Dillon was informed that she would work with her predecessor for training purposes until she was scheduled to leave. The predecessor was scheduled to leave on August 15. Ms. Dillon was also informed that it would take four to six months for her to become comfortable doing the job. “On September 29, Dillon was called into her supervisor’s office. The human...