Bernie Madoff Ponzi Scheme Essay

Published: 2020-04-22 15:24:05
688 words
3 pages
printer Print
essay essay

Category: Recruitment

Type of paper: Essay

This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

Hey! We can write a custom essay for you.

All possible types of assignments. Written by academics

Facts: In November 2008, the parties signed an employment agreement providing that Relator was to serve as the director of the school for the 2008-09 school year. The title of the agreement states the dates July 01/2008-June 30/2009. The first sentence of the agreement lists the administrative positions to which the agreement applies and states, This is a general at will agreement.(Ellis vs. BlueSky, 2010). Yet the agreement provides that [p]ositions will automatically renew for one year after one year of service unless specific actions are taken by the board before April 15th of each year (Ellis vs. BlueSky, 2010). It defines the work year as 220 days from July 1 to June 30, and provides for proration in terms of a new hire within the financial year. The board met on May 7, 2009 in a closed session to discuss allegations against Relator, but respondents counsel advised the board that it could simply reconvene the open meeting and do what [it] wish[es] to do under the at-will contract(Ellis vs. BlueSky, 2010). When the open meeting reconvened, counsel asked Relator if he wanted to make a statement.

According to the minutes, [Relator] stated that he knew his employment contract was at will, that no cause for termination need be stated, and that he wanted to act in the best interests of the school.(Ellis vs. BlueSky, 2010). The members voted for Relators immediate termination, after a failed motion by one member to place Relator on a paid leave. After the meeting, Relator wrote to the board secretary denying that he had stated he knew his employment could be terminated without cause. Relator argues that, under his contract, because his contract was terminated after April 15, 2009, respondent was obligated to employ him for the remainder of the 2008-09 school year and through the 2009-10 school year. He seeks damages for pay he was owed as of May 2009 and thereafter through the school year ending in 2010. He also seeks future damages for lost benefits and diminution in value of retirement benefits, as well as severance pay and other amounts associated with termination (Miller & Jentz, 2012).

Issue: Relator challenges his termination by writ of certiorari, claiming that respondent violated the contract and statutory requirements, and that respondent owes him certain amounts for the breach and other payments (Ellis vs. BlueSky, 2010). Decision: CRIPPEN, Judge: Challenging his termination as director of respondent BlueSky Charter School, Relator, Thomas Ellis argues that the termination breached his contract with respondent. Because the contract unambiguously established Relators position as at-will employment, we affirm (Miller & Jentz, 2012). HALBROOKS, Judge (dissenting): I respectfully dissent because I find this agreement to be ambiguous.

The agreement would be clear but for the addition of the words at will, and I do not think their addition to an agreement can override the internal contradiction the words create. The resulting terms are inherently in conflict and susceptible to reasonable disagreement about what the parties intended. In particular, I do not believe that an employee who signs an agreement with an automatic renewal clause reasonably intends to acquiesce in termination at will (Ellis vs. BlueSky, 2010). Reason: Even with a complete record of extrinsic evidence about the agreement, it would be difficult to discern what the at will clause was intended to mean.

The most we have in this record is the statement that the board attributes to Ellis in its meeting minutes. Ellis, however, denies having acknowledged that his employment was at will. At the very least, I would remand to the board to create a complete record on the meaning of the agreements terms and the parties intent. See Dokmo v. Indep. School Dist. No. 11,459 N.W.2d 671, 676 (Minnesota, 1990) (stating that school board has obligation to make a sufficient record to prove its actions were justified.). Alternatively, I would apply the well-established rule that ambiguity is to be construed against the drafter (as cited in Ellis vs. BlueSky, 2010)..


Ellis v. bluesky charter school. (2010, Apri). Retrieved from MNCO 20100420259.xml&docbase=CsLwAr3-2007-Curr&SizeDisp=7 Miller, R., & Jentz, G. (2012). Business law today. (9th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.

Warning! This essay is not original. Get 100% unique essay within 45 seconds!


We can write your paper just for 11.99$

i want to copy...

This essay has been submitted by a student and contain not unique content

People also read