Whether you're earning mega-millions or barely eking out a minimum wage, most of us are "at-will" employees, which usually means that we can be fired by our employers at any time. And, unless you've got a contract that affords you some protections, (or your employer has violated the law in some way), you'll usually not left with much of a legal recourse.
By way of example, in Coffey v. Tetragenetics, Inc. , Margaret Coffey, former president and chief executive officer of Tetragenetics, Inc. -- a biotech firm based up in Ithaca, New York -- sued for "breach of contract" after she was terminated by the company.
Ms. Coffey believed that her affiliation would run through the end of 2004. However, both the Schuyler County Supreme Court and the Appellate Division, Third Department, did not concur.
Although she had a letter which referenced a salary review and discretionary peformance bonus at the end of 2004, the document contained no assurances that Coffey's association with the company would last through that time. As the AD3 observed:
It has been firmly established that, "absent an agreement establishing a fixed duration, an employment relationship is presumed to be a hiring at will, terminable at any time by either party" ... Here, defendants made a prima facie showing that there was no agreement establishing a fixed duration to plaintiff's employment. Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to this showing.
In particular, and contrary to plaintiff's argument, the letter agreement pursuant to which she was hired does not raise a question of fact as to whether she was hired for a definite period, i.e., through the end of 2004 ... In short, this letter agreement contained no promises or assurances regarding the length of plaintiff's employment. References to the end of 2004 in the letter pertained merely to the timing of her salary review and discretionary performance bonus; such references in no way constituted an agreement to fix her employment until such time ... Nor was there an express written policy limiting defendants' right to discharge plaintiff upon which she relied ... To the contrary, defendants' bylaws expressly provide that Tetragenetics' president and chief executive officer serve at the pleasure of its board of directors.
You can can that.
For a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: Coffey v. Tetragenetics, Inc.