Employment Agreements Under (Dis)stress
In this article, the authors consider a question that may have great salience during the present strained economic conditions: Under what circumstances will a cut in pay amount to a de facto termination which supports a claim for benefits under an employment agreement?
May 13, 2020 at 11:30 AM
14 minute read
Many businesses are facing sharply lower revenue and the need to reduce costs as a result of the coronavirus and social-distancing mandates. For some businesses, that pressure means cutting salaries and laying off or furloughing employees. For an employee at will without an employment contract or offer letter that specifies compensation or benefits, the employee likely has no choice but to accept the cut or look for another job. But, for an individual with an employment contract which specifies compensation levels, a cut in pay would ordinarily implicate rights under that contract.
On the most basic level, if an agreement sets a compensation amount, a reduction in compensation could give rise to an employee's claim of breach of contract. The employee and employer would need to consider the merits of renegotiating their agreement or possibly engaging in litigation. For an employer and employee who wish to maintain a good relationship, litigation would not make sense.
However, when faced with a substantial cut in pay, an employee may regard the cut as so severe that it amounts to a de facto or constructive termination of the agreement. Depending on the definition of termination and other provisions in the contract, termination—constructive or actual—could in turn trigger rights of employees such as severance, vesting of equity or options, and other benefits, and impose added obligations on employers.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllJudgment of Partition and Sale Vacated for Failure To Comply With Heirs Act: This Week in Scott Mollen’s Realty Law Digest
Artificial Wisdom or Automated Folly? Practical Considerations for Arbitration Practitioners to Address the AI Conundrum
9 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Consumer Protection Suit Cleared to Go Forward Against Irritating Eye Serum
- 2COVID-19 Was Still Relevant in Securities Class Actions During 2024, Report Says
- 3After Botched Landing of United Airlines Boeing 767, Unlikely Plaintiff Sues Carrier
- 4DOT Moves to Roll Back Emissions Rules, Eliminate DEI Programs
- 5No Injury: Despite Proven Claims, Antitrust Suit Fails
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250