Here's the offer letter:
Brook, please know that as with all of our company employees, your employment with Arnold Communications, Inc. is at will. This simply means that Arnold Communications has the right to terminate your employment at any time just as you have the right to terminate your employment with Arnold Communications, Inc. at any time.
The lower court apparently decided that because the offer explained "at will" meant that employment could be terminated "at any time," it left open the possibility that the grounds for termination somehow were other than "at will."
In a refreshingly brief opinion based on logic and common sense, the Supremes unanimously decided that the agreement contained no ambiguity whatsoever:
The language of the parties' written agreement is unambiguous. AWI's letter plainly states that Dore's employment with AWI was at will. Indeed, as the trial court observed, Dore admitted as much and further admitted that he "read, signed, understood and did not disagree with the terms of the letter." Even the Court of Appeal acknowledged that the term "at will" when used in an employment contract normally conveys an intent employment may be ended by either party "at any time without cause." Although AWI's letter also states that AWI would provide Dore a "90 day assessment" and "annual review," these provisions, in describing AWI's employee evaluation schedule, neither expressly nor impliedly conferred on Dore the right to be terminated only for cause.
The Supreme Court also held that the 90-day probationary period and the promise of an annual review did not create any expectation of continued employment contrary to employment at will:
Although AWI's letter also states that AWI would provide Dore a "90 day assessment" and "annual review," these provisions, in describing AWI's employee evaluation schedule, neither expressly nor impliedly conferred on Dore the right to be terminated only for cause.
Right. Introductory periods are not inconsistent with at-will employment, contrary to what some have said. Of course, where employment is "at will" an introductory period is not legally required. But they do serve a purpose, in that they manage employees' expectations and provide management with a safe harbor for making an initial assessment regarding whether a hire is going to work out.
****Shameless self-promotion follows********
When you read the opinion, don't stop before you get to the page listing the attorneys! That's right, your humble correspondent helped write an amicus brief supporting the employer (surprise). Would it have been nice if the opinion had included a cite to our brief? Natch.DGV
