What Is Termination For Cause?

stressed worker“At-will” employment is an established legal principle in Connecticut. Most non-unionized Connecticut employers publish a statement to employees, either in an employee handbook or employment application materials or both, that the employment relationship between the employee and the company is employment at will.  These “disclaimer” statements typically explain that at-will employment means that the employment relationship may be terminated at any time, with or without notice and with or without cause.

Nevertheless, the concept of termination “for cause” is often used even in non-union employment situations.  Executive and professional employment agreements often provide the protection that the employer may terminate the agreement only for cause, or that the employee will receive separation pay if terminated without cause.  Employer policies  sometimes withhold the payment of accrued but unused vacation pay for employees who have been terminated for cause.  In the legislative session just ended, the Connecticut Legislature adopted a bill limiting the use of restrictive covenants in physician employment agreements, one limitation being that a restrictive covenant can’t be enforced when the employer terminates the agreement, unless the termination was for cause.

Of course, the meaning of the term “cause” may be specified in an employment contract.  But in the absence of a contract, what determines “cause” for termination?  Last year, in a case called Madigan v. East Hartford Housing Authority, the Connecticut Appellate Court determined that a provision in an employment agreement requiring “just cause” for termination, but not defining the term, meant that an employer could not simply rely on managerial discretion.  Instead, the just cause standard required a substantial reason that provided a proper and legally sufficient reason for termination.  And the court further held, importantly, that in a lawsuit by a terminated employee for breach of an employment contract, whether the employer had just cause for the discharge will be decided by the jury.

In the Madigan case, the plaintiff was the housing authority’s executive director.  The jury was not impressed with employer explanations such as rumors of an improper relationship with another employee, acting on “verbal okays” to hire the other employee rather than waiting for a board resolution of approval, raising his voice at a board meeting, walking out of the board meeting but only after board members had said they had no questions for him, and generally bad employee morale at the authority.

As a take-away, the Madigan decision is in line with the general observation of employment law attorneys that a jury will support an employer’s termination decision if it seems that the employee was treated fairly, was given a chance to perform, and failed significantly.  If the jury feels that there was unfairness and that the employer had only  minor gripes against the employee, there won’t be a finding of just cause.

This blog/web site presents general information only. The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice, and you should not consider or rely on it as such. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation. This website is not an offer to represent you. You should not act, or refrain from acting, based upon any information at this website. Neither our presentation of such information nor your receipt of it creates nor will create an attorney-client relationship with any reader of this blog. Any links from another site to the blog are beyond the control of Pullman & Comley, LLC and do not convey their approval, support or any relationship to any site or organization. Any description of a result obtained for a client in the past is not intended to be, and is not, a guarantee or promise the firm can or will achieve a similar outcome.

PDF
Subscribe to Updates

About Our Labor, Employment and Employee Benefits Law Blog

Alerts, commentary, and insights from the attorneys of Pullman & Comley’s Labor, Employment Law and Employee Benefits practice on such workplace topics as labor and employment law, counseling and training, litigation, immigration law and union issues, as well as employee benefits and ERISA matters.

Other Blogs by Pullman & Comley

Education Law Notes

Connecticut Health Law Blog

Recent Posts

Archives

Jump to Page