Opinion
No. 2022-C-01352
11-16-2022
Stephen MEDWICK, Maxwell Perry, Brandon Russell, and Scott Peluso v. MADCON CORPORATION
Writ application denied.
Hughes, J., would grant.
Genovese, J., would grant and assigns reasons.
Griffin, J., would grant.
GENOVESE, J., would grant for the following reasons:
Plaintiffs are commercial divers who were approached by defendant to assist with its contract for work at a facility in Guinea, West Africa ("the project"). Defendant sent, what it termed written offers of employment, to a number of commercial divers, including the three plaintiffs herein. The written offer of employment set forth details about compensation, benefits, and terms and conditions of their anticipated employment with defendant.
Plaintiffs accepted the offers. In furtherance and follow-up to said offers, plaintiffs waited for the project to start and did not seek other employment. Additionally, plaintiffs received inoculations, updated their passports, turned down other offers of employment, and underwent training for the project. Defendant's goal was to complete the project in 90 days, as bonuses were to be awarded based on completion date. One of the plaintiffs, herein, was given a $3,000.00 retainer.
The issue herein is whether defendant's written offer of employment is deemed an "at will" employment offer or a "limited term" employment offer. Ironically, when defendant tendered its written offer of employment, I agree it was an "at-will" employment offer, which was capable of being accepted or rejected. However, as a result of plaintiffs waiting for the project to start; not seeking other employment; receiving inoculations; updating their passports; undergoing training for the project; and, one plaintiff receiving a $3,000.00 retainer, defendant's "at-will" offer of employment morphed into a "limited term" employment offer, in which plaintiffs detrimentally relied.
I find the court of appeal disregarded the factual determinations made by and the discretion afforded to the trial court and substituted its opinion for that of the trial court. I would grant this writ, reverse the appellate court's decision, and reinstate the trial court's judgment in favor of plaintiffs, in toto.