Assignment #5 - Dillon V. Champion Jogbra

Assignment #5 - Dillon v. Champion Jogbra

Terralynn Goff

HRM 510

Professor Damaris Garrett

3//2013

Dillon v. Champion Jogbra

In the case of Dillion vs. Champion Jogbra, Linda Dillon was hired as a full-time employee to work for the company in August 1997 as a charge-back. During the summer of 1998, Dillon was asked by Jogbra management to assume to position as the sales administrator. Dillon applied, interviewed, and was hired for the position. Upon being hired for this position, Dillon was advised that she would receive extensive training for the position and the current manager would train her for the role. During the month of September, the prior manager return to train Dillon for an additional two days, in which Dillon stated that after that training; she had received a sufficient amount of training for the job. At the end of September, Dillon was advised by her supervisor and the HR manager that she was being reassigned to a temporary position with the company based on “things not working out” and if she was not able to obtain a permanent job with the company by the end of December she would be terminated (Walsh, 2010).

It is important to keep in mind that Champion Jogbra distributes an employee manual at the time of employment and the first page states “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”. Jogbra also has an “at will” policy that allows them to terminate any employee at any time with or without cause. The legal issue in this case is whether or not Champion's employment practices -- and adoption of a "progressive discipline system" -- changed the terms of Dillon's employment to require cause for discharge" (Walsh, 2010).

The implied contract in this case is based on the supervisor giving Dillon the impression that...