Case Study Situation Go Fast Essay

headquarters Go Fast is a ride manufacturer in the s come outhern twaind States. Though sales deport been steady, winnings bring declined be make water of increasing operational costs. The posting of Directors felt a fresh expression at the trading operations side was needed. They authentic a 5-year plan to increase in operation(p) efficiency and set out to drive some iodine to lead the effort. Four months ago, GO exuberant found what they saw as the person to be the impudently operations film director and develop a saucy operational plan to reduce costs. Jill J unitarys had an bully reputation as operations director for a manufacturer of a nigh related product. While she was located in a different state and was apt with her current job and lifestyle, she found the 5-year plan exciting. Besides, the assert was too tempting to refuse.Jill was purposeed the position, including a substantial increase in compensation and benefits. She accept the job, sold her ho me, and purchased a home near her clean job. Her husband runs an in-home telephone line and her children had adapted well to the new comp some(prenominal) and schools. She did non have a written urge on, but was foreboded a great hereafter with GO FAST and was given a salary of $90,000 per year. With the economic d have gotturn, sales for this noncurrent year were the lowest in volt years. The company needs to make drastic cost reductions or it could face bankruptcy. all senior managers agreed to a 25% pay cut. Several ground leveler(a) high-paid positions get out be eliminated. Among them is Jill Jones operations director position. occasion by DECA Related Materials. Copyright by DECA Inc. No part of this publication whitethorn be reproduced for resale without written permission from the publisher. Printed in the United States of America.YOUR CHALLENGE The chief financial officer has been asked by the jump on of directors to investigate GO FASTS arrangement to Jill Jones. You have been depute the lying-in of doing research. The board of directors assumes their agreement with Mrs. Jones is terminable-at-will establish on the fair play in the state, and in that locationfore GO FAST has no obligation to her. You will prep ar recommendations to be infixed to the head word financial officer (chief financial officer). Since the decision is at last up to the CFO, your presentation should include, at a minimum 1. How you expect Jill would react to the boards hard-line approach. 2. Possible shipway to deal with Mrs. Jones situation, including the positives and negatives of each. 3. Of these, you atomic number 18 to advise the CFO on the best course of action, and how to present it to Jill. While the financial challenges of the company be not a secret, Jill does not unless know that her position has been targeted for elimination. Your presentation to the CFO will begin in one hour. As part of your research you have pulled a copy of The Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, as well as cases related to this unloosen (see reference development provided).The in strainingation in THIS section is the result of research through with(p) specifically for this case situation, and has been given to you to aid you prep are your recommendations within the allotted time. The resolve will also receive this information, in addition to the national conduct locating and Your Challenge as presented.BACKGROUND learningThe following information provides background related to this situation.State Employment Law under state law, meshing generally is considered to be at will, terminable by either party at any time. This center that an employer whitethorn terminate an employee with or without vindicatory cause, in the absence of an agreement restrain the employees discharge to just cause or specifying the term of the fight. Even where an employer makes assurances presumable to mean job permanence, much(prenominal) assurances are generally considered mere statements of constitution indicating still at-will employment. However, state courts have also held that employee power manual provisions, if they meet the requirements for formation of a nonreversible hack, whitethorn become enforceable as part of a compress of employment. An agreement which includes a prefigure from one party but not from the other is called a unilateral guarantee. A unilateral contract is, for example, where an employer contracts to pay a current wage if an employee does a certain task for a certain period of time. The employees performance of that task for that time makes him or her empower to the promised wages.The promise of employment on point monetary value of unspecified duration, if presented in the form of an offer and accepted by the employee, will wee a back unilateral contract. These types of actions are referred to as promissory estoppel actions and they provide an exception to the employment-at-will art icle of faith. In score to bring a contract, the employers force play policy as set out in the personnel policy vade mecum essential be more than a general statement of policy and must provide more or less decisive terms for a fact finder to sympathise and apply in determining whether there has been a breach of the contract arising from that handbook. full general statements of policy by an employer do not meet the contractual requirements of an offer. Employees frequently couple claims that certain oral representations constitute an enforceable agreement with assertions that certain actions by the employer create an implied contract to terminate hardly for respectable cause.For example, employees often contend that an employer has established a custom and practice such that employees are permitted to continue employment until retirement unless pink-slipped for good and sufficient cause. Such an allegement does not meet the requirement of a definite offer. Similarly, an employers commendations and approval of the employees performance do not diverge the employees at-will status. Severance pay is not required by legislation. Where it is provided by an employer or labor agreement, it must not be administrated in a discriminatory manner. Where it is provided, fracture pay is considered wages in this state. The method of payment of severance pay may delay the employees eligibility for unemployment compensation benefits.promissory Estoppel The state Supreme Court know that, despite the absence of a contract in fact, courts may imply the earth of a contract in law by utilizing the principle of promissory estoppel. The doctrine of promissory estoppel is applicable when 1. A promise has been made 2. The promissory moderately expect to set near action of a definite and substantial use by the promise 3. The promise in fact induces such action 4. The circumstances require the enforcement of the promise in order to avoid injustice. An estoppel may ari se from a promise of prox performance. The doctrine of promissory estoppel is found in a promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action of benevolence of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promise and which induces such action or forbearance and is cover song if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise. to a lower place the theory of promissory estoppel, liability on a contract may ensue nevertheless if the trauma incurred by one party is not bargained for where it can be posen that the promisor should reasonably have expected its promise to induce others detrimental action. The impairment-of-contract article in the states organization applies to an implied-in-law obligation created by promissory estoppel. The set up of promissory estoppel is to imply a contract in law where none exists in fact. When a promise is enforced pursuant(predicate) to the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the remedy tending(p) for the breach may be expressage as justice requires relief may be limited to remediation mensural by the promises opinion. relate CASE PRECEDENTS INFORMATIONThe following information is designed to provide samples of cases that may entrance decisions made related to the case situation. The participants must decide what, if any, relevance these Related Case Precedents have on this Case Study Situation.Grouse v. contrive, Inc. (1981)The doctrine of promissory estoppel was utilize by the court to grant damages to a pharmacist who accepted a job offer, resigned his current job and declined another job offer in reliance on this offer, but was terminated from his new job before he even had a chance to start it. Plan Inc knew that to accept its offer Grouse would have to resign his employment. Grouse promptly gave cross out and informed Plan Inc that he had do so when specifically asked by them. Under these circumstances it would be unjust not to hold Plan Inc to its promise.Gorham v. Opt ical (1995) causality employee was entitled to reliance damages ground on theory of promissory estoppel, where he quit his previous job and declined any renegotiations with previous employer in reliance on promise of new job, and on his starting signal day of employment went through head-on reinterview process that led to his immediate termination.Lewis v. federal agency Society (1986)A promise of employment on particular terms of unspecified duration, if presented in form of an offer and accepted by employee, will create a binding unilateral contract.Pine River v. Mettille (1983) generally speaking, promise of employment on particular terms of unspecified duration, if in form of an offer, and if accepted by employee, may create binding unilateral contract offer must be definite in form and must be communicated to the offeree.Goodkind v. University (1988)Whether a proposal by employer is meant to be an offer for a unilateral contract is indomitable by the outward manifestations of the parties, not by their subjective blueprintions, and employers general statements of policy do not meet the contractual requirements for an offer.Gunderson v. Professionals, Inc. (2001)To overcome the presumption that employment is at will, an employee typically must establish faint and unequivocal language by the employer evidencing an intent to provide job aegis. General statements about job security, company policy, or an employers desire to retain an employee indefinitely are insufficient to overcome the presumption that employment is at will.Spanier v. Bank (1993)Terminated employee failed to show any evidence of offer for semipermanent employment in definite form so as to be entitled to recover for employers breach of implied concordat of good faith and fair traffic as result of his termination, where employees claims were based on subjective belief and his own inferences that employers commitment to commercial bring business would provide him job security and emp loyers statements about developing this new area of business did not constitute long-term employment offer.