Reynolds v. Gentry Fin. Corp., 2016 UT App.35 (Utah Court of Appeals)
Case Summary: After being reassured repeatedly and prominently in writing that her employer would take no adverse action against any employee for bringing a complaint to the home office and in fact that the employer viewed not reporting violations of company policy as misconduct appellant Lucinda Reynolds reported that her immediate supervisor had directed her to act in violation of company policy and applicable law. She was fired two weeks later.
The district court ruled on summary judgment that the discharge violated no law because Reynolds was an at-will employee, and Reynolds appealed. The appeals court reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
Review the full case on pages 643 – 646 of your text, then compose your initial post answering the following questions.
What are the legal issues in this case? What did the appeals court decide?
What implied contract is alleged to have been breached? What is the evidence that this implied contract exists?
Why does the employer’s disclaimer not resolve the matter
Why is the separate at-will employment agreement that the employee had signed when she was hired not sufficient to negate an implied contract providing her for something other than employment at will?
At trial, is the plaintiff likely to be able to prove the existence of an implied contract? Why or why not?
Is the plaintiff likely to be able to prove that any implied contract was breached by her termination? Why or why not?
As a practical matter, what should this employer have done differently?
