Peterson v
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
California State University, Northridge *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
308
Subject
Law
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
2
Uploaded by jabir2007
Peterson v. AT&T Mobility Services, LLC
Case:
Peterson v. AT&T Mobility Services, LLC 2015. Facts:
when Peterson was working with AT&T in an hourly position, he was covered by collective bargaining agreement, which was called graduated disciplinary measures. But when was promoted as a salaried managerial position, he was no longer part of the union and subject to
the agreement. He claimed that this agreement still applies and guaranteed. AT&T both denied that Peterson was told that there was no graduated disciplinary policy for salaried management employees. Since Peterson was fired due to violating a company policy for not reporting driving related offense which involved intoxication, tickets, citations, and arrests. Consequently, he was fired for infractions not reported to AT&T.
Issue:
since the contract between Peterson and AT&T clarifies responsibility and violations thoroughly, did AT&T breach contract and wrongfully terminated Peterson?
Rules:
between the parties not written employment agreement exists. Peterson claim is based on oral promise. Under District of Columbia law, employment is presumed to be terminable at will by either party, or the presumption is rebuttable by “a showing that ”the parties intended that termination be subject to specific preconditions. Peterson presents no corroboration for this recollection.
Analysis:
The plausibility of the purported oral precondition applying to the plaintiff is also undermined the admissions at his deposition that, while he received documentation regarding performance quotas, he never received “any document that discussed disciplinary procedures” for “policy violations.” This also shows the lack of corroboration of the alleged oral precondition, so this insufficiency creates a genuine issue of material fact on which a reasonable
jury could conclude that the plaintiff’s at-will employment was specially conditioned for him to receive the graduated warnings prior to termination to which union members were entitled.
Conclusion:
AT&T did not breach the contract. For the foregoing reasons, AT&T’s motion for summary judgment is granted.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help