Green v. Edward J. Bettinger Co.

14 Citing cases

  1. Hicks v. Glob. Data Consultants

    2022 Pa. Super. 134 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2022)   Cited 4 times

    Under this framework, an employer cannot retroactively modify the terms of compensation for work that has already been completed. See Braun, 24 A.3d at 942; see also Green v. Edward J. Bettinger Co., 608 F.Supp. 35, 42 (E.D. Pa. 1984) (stating that under Pennsylvania law, "[t]he undoubted right to terminate an at-will contract necessarily includes the right to insist upon changes in the compensation arrangements as a condition of continued employment."). However, when an employer notifies an employee of changes to the at-will employment contract and the employee continues working with knowledge of the changes, the employee has accepted the changed terms.

  2. Harley v. Minerals Techs. Inc.

    No. 13-cv-954 (RJS) (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 26, 2014)   Cited 2 times

    ennsylvania law recognize that where an employment relationship is "at-will," an employer is free to unilaterally change the terms of employment. Compare Klein v. Torrey Point Grp., LLC, 979 F. Supp. 2d 417, 432 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) ("Under New York law, an employer is free to change the terms of at-will employment. . . prospectively, subject to the employee's right to leave such employment if the new terms are unacceptable."), and Bottini v. Lewis & Judge Co., 621 N.Y.S.2d 753, 754 (App. Div. 3d Dep't 1995) ("[Employer] was free to modify the terms of plaintiff's employment, subject only to plaintiff's right to leave his employment if he found the new terms unacceptable."), with Divenuta v. Bilcare, Inc., No. 09-cv-3657 (WHY), 2011 WL 1196703, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 30, 2011) ("[Under Pennsylvania law, the] power to terminate the employment relationship 'at-will' carries with it the power to dictate prospective changes in the terms of employment, including an employee's compensation."), and Green v. Bettinger Co., 608 F. Supp. 35, 42 (E.D. Pa. 1984) ("[Under Pennsylvania law, t]he undoubted right to terminate an at-will contract necessarily includes the right to insist upon changes in the compensation arrangements as a condition of continued employment."). Similarly, both New York and Pennsylvania courts construe an employee's decision to remain employed after the employer's unilateral modification of the employment terms as assent to the new terms.

  3. Divenuta v. Bilcare, Inc.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-3657 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 30, 2011)   Cited 13 times
    Striking damages for breach of contract claim based on injury to credit score, where plaintiff merely argued that “credit score is a matter of record and if necessary, one could make an inquiry to the credit raters and find out what [plaintiff's] exact score was during any particular time period”

    This power to terminate the employment relationship "at will" carries with it the power to dictate prospective changes in the terms of employment, including an employee's compensation. See Green v. Edward J. Bettinger Co., 608 F. Supp. 35, 42 (E.D. Pa. 1984) ("The undoubted right to terminate an at-will contract necessarily includes the right to insist upon changes in the compensation arrangements as a condition of continued employment."), aff'd, 791 F.2d 917 (3d Cir. 1986) (table).

  4. Gehin-Scott v. Newson, Inc.

    848 F. Supp. 585 (E.D. Pa. 1994)   Cited 7 times

    In the absence of an express agreement to the contrary, an employer is free to determine the terms and conditions of employment, and may terminate the relationship at will. Green v. Edward J. Bettinger Co., 608 F. Supp. 35, 40 (E.D.Pa. 1984). By the same token, if an employee is dissatisfied with the terms offered by the employer, the employee is free to resign.

  5. Randler v. Kountry Kraft, Inc.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:11-CV-474 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 24, 2011)   Cited 3 times
    Deciding defendant's partial motion to dismiss

    In fact, nepotism has been employed as a successful defense to employment discrimination claims. See, e.g., Green v. Edward J. Bettinger Co., 608 F. Supp. 35 (E.D. Pa. 1984) judgment aff'd, 791 F.2d 917 (3d Cir. 1986) (holding that an employer did not violate an anti-discrimination statute by grooming his son to take over the business); see also 1 SUMM. PA. JUR. 2D TORTS § 12:38.

  6. Malloy v. Intercall, Inc.

    Civil Action No.: 08-01182 (JLL) (D.N.J. Dec. 28, 2010)   Cited 9 times
    Granting summary judgment on NJLAD retaliation claim where plaintiff "pointed to no facts supporting her claim that she was terminated in retaliation for her complaint other than merely pointing to the fact that she complained and was terminated approximately two weeks later."

    Mita v. Chubb Computer Serv., Inc., 767 A.2d 989, 994 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2001). Courts in other states have reached a similar conclusion regarding at-will employees. See, e.g., Green v. Edward J. Bettinger Co., 608 F. Supp. 35, 41-42 (E.D. Pa. 1984), aff'd, 791 F.2d 917 (3rd Cir. 1986) ("The undoubted right to terminate an at-will contract necessarily includes the right to insist upon changes in the compensation arrangements as a condition of continued employment."); Cotter v. Desert Palace, Inc., 880 F.2d 1142, 1145 (9th Cir. 1989) (holding that an employee contract claim based on a change in the tip sharing policy failed because "[a]n employer privileged to terminate an employee at any time necessarily enjoys the lesser privilege of imposing prospective changes in the conditions of employment"). Intercall further argues that this is particularly true where, as here, the alleged agreement contains no duration and where the employee manual provides that the at-will nature of the employment may not be altered except by written agreement approved by the President or Board of Directors.

  7. Golkow v. Esquire Deposition Services, LLC

    CIVIL ACTON NO. 07-3355 (E.D. Pa. Sep. 23, 2009)   Cited 5 times
    Holding that plaintiff was not entitled to an accounting sought in order to remedy the same damages alleged as part of her breach of contract claim

    Since plaintiff has stated that Mr. Ackerman continued to represent that the rate was still 25% and he would resolve the discrepancy, it is reasonable to believe that plaintiff continued to perform under the unilateral contract with the expectation that she would be paid 25%. Green v. Edward J. Bettinger Co., 608 F. Supp. 35 (E.D. Pa. 1984) and Maloney v. Madrid Motor Corp., 385 Pa. 224 (Pa. 1956), upon which defendant relies, are distinguishable. First, neither case involved a unilateral agreement that required the mutual consent of the parties to terminate or modify it, and in both of those cases the notification of termination was clear and unambiguous. Similarly, EFCO Imps. V. Halsobrunn, 500 F. Supp. 152 (E.D. Pa. 1980), is distinguishable as it not only involves an express bilateral contract, but also a clear statement by the defendant to terminate the contract and statements by the plaintiff that it was dissatisfied with the contract.

  8. Beauchamp v. Trammell Crow Company

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-5667 (E.D. Pa. Sep. 14, 2006)

    Under Pennsylvania law, in the absence of an express agreement to the contrary, an employer is free to determine the terms and conditions of employment and may terminate the relationship at will. Gehin-Scott v. Newson, Inc., 848 F. Supp. 585, 589 (E.D. Pa. 1994) (citing Green v. Edward J. Bettinger Co., 608 F. Supp. 35, 40 (E.D. Pa. 1984)). However, assuming the facts alleged in the complaint to be true, the at-will employment doctrine does not bar Beauchamp's breach of contract claim.

  9. Hernandez v. Data Systems International, Inc.

    266 F. Supp. 2d 1285 (D. Kan. 2003)   Cited 12 times
    Finding that four isolated comments over the course of four years failed to demonstrate the “steady barrage” required to show a hostile work environment

    DSI has easily satisfied its relatively light burden of proffering a non-discriminatory basis for the disparate commission rates and quotas. See, e.g., Komac v. Gordon Food Serv., 3 F. Supp.2d 850, 856 (N.D.Ohio. 1998) (finding that defendant proffered a legitimate non-discriminatory basis for plaintiff's rate of salary reduction by explaining that it reduced plaintiff's salary at a greater rate because she acquired a more profitable sales territory); Woodward v. Heritage Imports, 773 F. Supp. 306, 311 (D.Utah 1991) (finding defendant's objective of bringing plaintiff's salary into parity with industry standards constituted legitimate, non-discriminatory basis for its act); Green v. Edward J. Bettinger Co., 608 F. Supp. 35, 42 (E.D.Pa. 1984) (finding decision to reduce commission arrangement justified in order to preserve the morale of other similarly situated employees, and to head off a potential, undeserved, windfall for plaintiff). The burden now shifts to Mr. Hernandez to demonstrate that DSI's argument is a pretext for discrimination.

  10. Woodward v. Heritage Imps.

    773 F. Supp. 306 (D. Utah 1991)   Cited 4 times
    Finding defendant's objective of bringing plaintiff's salary into parity with industry standards constituted legitimate, non-discriminatory basis for its act

    The employer's justification for the change — to maintain an appropriate relationship between plaintiff's compensation and the results of her efforts, to rationalize the compensation schedule in light of the changed circumstances, to preserve the morale of other similarly situated employees, and to head off a potential, undeserved, windfall for plaintiff — is eminently reasonable, and plaintiff has offered nothing to dispute it.Green v. Edward J. Bettinger Co., 608 F. Supp. 35, 42 (D.C.Pa. 1984) (granting defendant's motion for summary judgment in Title VII case), aff'd, 791 F.2d 917 (3d Cir. 1986). In the present case, the evidence of defendant's reasons for reducing Woodward's compensation suggested an eminently reasonable justification for the reduction in Woodward's pay.