Hearing, Pettersen v Monaghan Safar Ducham PLLC, 2020 192

Summary

This script depicts a court hearing involving William Patterson, who is representing himself, and attorney Eric Jones, representing the law firm Monahan, Safar and Duchamp. Patterson claims the firm breached a compensation agreement and wrongfully terminated him after he threatened legal action. Jones argues Patterson resigned, was paid fairly, and bases his entire case on one conversation lacking requisite specificity for legal claims. The justices question both sides about elements of contractual disputes versus matters of public policy interest, probing the strength of arguments.

Takeaways

• 😀 Patterson argues there was a breach of a compensation promise and wrongful termination
• 😕 Patterson claims a statement by Monahan affirmed his proposed compensation plan
• 🤔 The court questions if there was a definitive compensation promise made
• 🧐 Patterson states he was terminated, while Jones claims he resigned
• 😮 Patterson argues the Vermont Constitution supports a wrongful termination claim
• 🤨 Jones states Patterson's claims lack evidence of reliance or intent
• 😐 Jones argues Patterson's aspirations concerned future events that never occurred
• 😀 Patterson states statutes show a public policy against retaliation
• 🤔 The court questions if dissatisfaction with pay is enough for a claim
• 🤨 Jones argues the dispute is contractual and does not implicate public policy

Q & A

What is the central issue in the case being discussed?

The central issue is an alleged breach of a compensation promise made by the law firm to Patterson during salary negotiations in 2016.

What did attorney Monahan specifically say to Patterson regarding his compensation proposal?

According to Patterson, Monahan said 'Yes, that's reasonable' in response to Patterson's 5-year partnership track and $100,000 salary proposal.

Does Patterson claim there was a written contract regarding the alleged compensation promise?

No, Patterson acknowledges there was no written contract, only a verbal affirmation of his proposal by Monahan.

What is Patterson's key argument regarding his wrongful termination claim?

Patterson argues that his termination after raising the prospect of legal claims over the compensation dispute violates public policy protections for employees.

What is the defense's main counterargument regarding the wrongful termination claim?

The defense argues that Patterson resigned and was not actually terminated, so there is no wrongful termination.

What does the defense say is the only evidence supporting Patterson's claims?

The defense says the conversation between Patterson and Monahan is the sole factual basis for all of Patterson's claims.

How does the defense characterize Monahan's alleged statement to Patterson?

The defense argues it was merely an expression of opinion or aspiration, not an actual promise.

What does the defense say about Patterson's job search activities?

They argue that Patterson was continually looking for other jobs, showing he did not rely on or was not induced to stay by anything the firm said.

What argument does the defense make regarding the timeline of events?

They note Patterson quit after 2 years, before the alleged 5-year trajectory to partnership, so he cannot claim damages about what might have happened years in the future.

How does the defense counter Patterson's public policy arguments?

They say private contractual disputes do not implicate public policy interests absent some collateral public impact, which they argue is not present here.

Outlines

00:00

😀 Opening statements from plaintiff and defense

The plaintiff William Patterson, representing himself, provides an opening statement summarizing the key issues of alleged breach of compensation promise and wrongful termination after raising prospect of legal claims. The defense argues the case rests on an unremarkable conversation about career aspirations, which cannot support any claims, and that Patterson resigned and was not terminated.

05:00

😟 Discussion on whether there was a clear promise made

There is back and forth questioning over whether there was actually a definitive promise made regarding the alleged compensation plan, with Patterson arguing there was while the judges question the lack of specifics or parameters around the supposed promise.

10:04

😀 Patterson shifts focus to wrongful termination arguments

Patterson skips past further questions on the promise issue to focus the remainder of his time on arguments around wrongful termination and violation of public policy, citing additional support from the Vermont constitution regarding protection of legal remedies.

15:04

😐 The defense responds to claims

The defense argues that the case rests on an unremarkable conversation that cannot support any claims, there was no detrimental reliance or evidence of intent for fraud, Patterson resigned and was not terminated, there are no implications of public policy, and the court should affirm dismissal.

20:05

😀 The defense provides more details against the claims

Going through each claim, the defense argues there was no definite promise to support promissory estoppel, no evidence of reliance or substantial change in position, no evidence of fraudulent intent, Patterson was paid fairly so no unjust enrichment, and he resigned rather than being wrongfully terminated.

25:06

😟 Further debate over wrongful termination

There is continued back and forth over whether Patterson's actions amounted to resignation rather than wrongful termination, with the defense arguing his actions clearly established resignation while Patterson disputes that characterization.

30:08

😀 Final rebuttal from Patterson

In his final rebuttal, Patterson argues that retaliation protections in other statutes support finding a common law public policy exception, and that it would economically benefit employers and employees.

Keywords

💡lawsuit

A lawsuit refers to a civil action brought in court in which a plaintiff makes a legal claim against a defendant for damages or specific performance. In this video, William Patterson has brought a lawsuit against his former law firm employers for breach of a compensation agreement and wrongful termination. The lawsuit is the central focus of the appellate court hearing.

💡appellate court

An appellate court is a court that hears appeals from lower courts. In this video, the case is being argued at the appellate level, meaning the lower court already ruled on the case and one party has appealed that decision seeking the appellate court to review the lower court's application of the law.

💡promissory estoppel

Promissory estoppel is a legal doctrine that allows for the enforcement of a promise that would otherwise be unenforceable, such as an oral promise. It applies when one party reasonably relies on the promise to their detriment. William Patterson argues there was a clear compensation promise made by the law firm.

💡wrongful termination

Wrongful termination refers to being fired from a job for an unlawful or unethical reason, such as retaliation for filing a lawsuit. William Patterson argues that his termination violated public policy against retaliation for making legal claims against your employer.

💡unjust enrichment

Unjust enrichment is a claim seeking compensation where one party benefits at the unfair expense of another. William Patterson brings an unjust enrichment claim arguing that the law firm greatly benefited from his work without fairly compensating him.

💡fraud

Fraud refers to an intentional deception made for personal gain. William Patterson includes a fraud claim against the law firm, alleging they never intended to fulfill the compensation promise that induced him to keep working there.

💡at-will employment

At-will employment refers to an employment relationship that has no definite term and can be ended by either party without reason or warning. The court questions whether William Patterson disputes that he was an at-will employee, which would normally allow his firing without cause.

💡retaliation

Retaliation refers to punishing someone for making a complaint. William Patterson argues that his termination was in retaliation for threatening legal action over the compensation dispute, violating public policy.

💡resignation

Resignation refers to an employee voluntarily leaving a job. The law firm claims William Patterson resigned, while he argues that he was fired in retaliation after resigning was initially raised.

💡severance

Severance refers to compensation paid to an employee upon termination. William Patterson states he offered to release any legal claims in exchange for a severance payment from the firm.

Highlights

The case involves an alleged breach of compensation promise and resulting termination after raising legal claims

A promise is a manifestation of intent to act or refrain from acting in a specified way to justify understanding a commitment was made

Monahan asked what compensation Patterson was requesting, and Patterson proposed a specific, definite compensation plan

Patterson argues Monahan saying the proposal was reasonable was an affirmation of the compensation plan

Patterson acknowledges the employment remained at-will without just cause termination requirements despite the alleged promise

Patterson was terminated via a letter after raising the prospect of legal claims

The Vermont Constitution provides remedies freely and without purchase, indicating protection beyond just monetary losses

Age discrimination violated public policy before becoming statute; losing legal claim rights could similarly violate public policy

Appellate counsel argues Patterson's statement of career aspirations was not a definite promise but mere opinion

Counsel argues Patterson actively sought other jobs and only stayed due to lack of better offers, not reliance on alleged promise

Counsel argues Patterson inflicted his own harm by quitting after 2 years instead of waiting 5 years to see if aspirations were met

Uniform protection from retaliation in statutes and common law decreases chilling effect and encourages economic efficiency

Without protection, employees fear enforcing agreements, decreasing willingness to contract with employers

Patterson argues the alleged promise changed the at-will nature of his employment

Monahan stated Patterson could have earned partnership in the future based on past negotiations

Transcripts

good morning your honors

the matter before the court this morning

is the case entitled

william patterson the monahan safar

and duchamp docket number

20-192 appellate

william patterson is self-represented

representing the opelini

monahan safar and duchamp is eric david

jones

okay thank you very much mr pettison can

you hear me

yes your honor thank you all right

please go ahead

good morning your honors it's an honor

to speak before you today

attorney william patterson representing

myself

pro saying the case may please the court

this case involves an alleged breach of

compensation promise

and a resulting termination after the

prospect of legal claims

was raised this argument

today will briefly address the first

element of promissory estoppel

and thereafter will attempt to focus

the majority of the time on the issue of

public policy termination

as it appears to be the most

important legal issue in the case

regarding each of these issues i will

attempt to provide

some additional arguments not discussed

within the briefs

regarding promissory estoppel a promise

is defined as a manifestation of intent

to act or refrain from acting in a

specified way

so as to justify a promisee

and understanding a commitment has been

made

that is exactly what occurred in this

case

the alleged promise in this case is a

statement

made by defendant's managing partner

attorney monahan

two plaintiff during salary negotiations

in 2016. it's worth noting these

individuals had engaged in prior

negotiations

in which plaintiff had requested

additional compensation

and in which attorney monahan had

declined but had communicated

plaintiff had an opportunity to earn

partnership in the future

with the firm during the meeting in

question

plaintiff approached attorney monahan

and communicated

he was still uncomfortable with the

level of his compensation

and was unwilling to remain employed

with the firm

unless a more specific compensation plan

was reached

importantly attorney monahan then asked

plaintiff

what he was requesting plaintiff

then proposed a compensation plan

as set forth in the briefs that was both

specific

and definite in nature

your original compensation plan was in

writing was it not

um that's a great question your honor

the uh there were there were no

um in i suppose my view

there were no employment contracts

written there was

a letter of hire that

set forth the salary generally

but there were no written contracts as

to any compensation

plan um in my view

and so having said that there was

something in writing about your original

compensation

why didn't you request something in

writing here

thanks for the question your honor um

another great question

the uh thought that comes most

quickly to mind is that once you

hear something that's a good answer you

don't try to change anything thereafter

i i received what i perceived to be

an acknowledgement and an affirmation

of the compensation plan that i had

proposed

and i did not want to

uh rock the boat anymore after i

received what i had asked for

well um mr patterson the the what you

received was

a confirmation that what you were asking

for was reasonable

isn't that what you got

the uh that is what

defense argues your honor um do you say

he

different than that yes your honor uh

i i interpret uh i believe

the exact words were yes that's

reasonable

after the compensation plan was proposed

i believe a reasonable interpretation of

that is yes

that's reasonable means yes that

the proposal is reasonable

and i believe a reasonable jury could

find that

when that's being proposed

and attorney monahan knows plaintiff has

said he needs a specific plan in order

to remain employed with the firm

when he says yes that proposal is

reasonable

that's an affirmation of the plan you

you spent

a lot of time in your brief talking

about how you

interpreted this statement but one of

the claims that you have here

on appeal is a fraud claim that requires

intentional misrepresentation

i don't understand how you can on the

one hand say

this is all we should look at this is

how you

interpret it when a fraud claim requires

intentional misrepresentation

understood your honor

the way i would most quickly address

that

question i think would just be to say

that

a promise um under promissory couple

does not require

intent at the time by the promise or

not to follow through with the promise

the promissor can

make a promise that he or she really

intends to make good on

and then later by happenstance

accidentally

break it and that's promissory estoppel

the difference

simply is the intent at the time the

promise is made

under intentional misrepresentation

there needs to be sufficient evidence

that at the time the promise was made

the promissor did not intend to make

good on the promise

so do you say that there was a

definitive statement or a promise that

was made specifically or just this is an

option for you definitive promise your

honor

and the specific language would be yes

that's reasonable the affirmation of the

compensation plan during that meeting

with what parameters though if you a

five-year partnership track with a

thousand dollar salary was that based on

anything

including like bringing clients into the

firm

or anything at all regarding um what

your contributions would be to the firm

i had previously been told that i did

not

need to bring in clients in order to

obtain partnership

um but the specific parameters of the

compensation plan were simply that my

performance up to that point

which had been deemed satisfactory uh

would continue

that as long as my good performance

continued this is

what the trajectory would be good

performance in your work product a quick

performance in your

billable hours i think that was very

much

in the employer's discretion um

however it was a standard oftentimes

contracts

have compensation plans that don't even

have a performance

metric so i think this is similar to

many contracts and agreements in that

respect

are you disputing that you are an at

will employee

um he uh i don't think this

created any uh just cause

termination requirement your honor so i

don't think that this promise would

change the at will nature of the

employment

on that issue i know i'm sorry we're

jumping at you with all these questions

you said you wanted to talk about

wrongful

termination the public policy issues but

i'm having a hard time finding in the

record

anything to support your notion that

there was

a statement to you you're fired you're

done

um i know you didn't file a motion

of of contested facts or

uncontested facts and so as i understood

it the trial court

said that it would just look at any

documents that might establish

facts but what what is the evidence that

you're saying

indicates that you were fired are you

suggesting someone actually said you're

fired leave today pack up your stuff

uh yes your honor i believe that

uh that will be in my statement of facts

um

which is printed case 220

through 232 uh and 233

and the termination should be set forth

therein there was a

a letter that was provided that that

stated if i was not quitting i was

terminated

um and there was also a statement made

by attorney

monahan in a meeting with myself and the

partners

to that same effect

thank you

i i suppose i will um skip to

um the unjust

uh excuse me termination and violation

of public policy

and focus the remainder of my time on

that

if there are any other questions at this

time

the brief set forth

certain arguments on the policy i will

just today provide additional arguments

um in in support of the public policy at

issue

first the vermont constitution chapter 1

article 4

states and i'm paraphrasing

that every person within the state shall

have remedy and recourse under the laws

freely and without being obliged to

purchase it

and there's a comma between freely and

without being obliged to purchase it

which indicates freely means more than

just without being required to pay money

otherwise it would be a redundant clause

so it freely means more than the loss of

money

it should certainly include a loss of

one's employment

as that's one of the greatest economic

costs

a citizen can suffer

mr sorry

mr pettison uh don't we require

a showing of cruel or shocking

conduct in order to agree with you

that's the boynton case and in

2014 2019 somewhere in there

um your honor i uh i certainly that

sounds correct

um i trust your honor is correct i would

submit that that connotation often has a

personal nature to it so i think it's

just

a little bit difficult to to expand that

to public policy issues but

in general the age discrimination for

example that this court found was

volatile of public policy before it was

a statute

that is similar in this respect and the

fact that it affects many people

and a large scope and i would argue the

loss of

the ability to freely bring legal claims

is indeed rising to that level of

unjustness

so mr patterson can i ask you a question

you

um as i understand it are now have a law

practice yourself

is that right that's correct your honor

um

and let's say that your business grows

and you

someday hire an associate um is it

your position that if you had an

associate

and the associates uh you know uh

counsel um i don't like the way things

are run around here i'm bringing a

lawsuit against you

that you would not as the employer have

the ability to discharge that person at

that point

um great question your honor i think

the standard would simply be what it is

for uh

other claims similarly which is

a termination could still occur for any

other reason just not retaliation

so any non-legitimate any legitimate

non-retaliatory reason

would be fair for termination

under as an employee it will that it has

to be um

some justification for the uh for the

termination

uh and employee at will there there

needs to be no justification your honor

so it would be any

legitimate non-retaliatory reason and i

suppose you're right it could be

this would be different maybe it would

be just any reason just not retaliation

that's a great point

at this time i would reserve the rest of

my time if um if i may

all right okay we'll turn to the uh

the appellate council for the appellate

please introduce yourself identify your

client and then proceed

thank you mr chief justice it may please

the court i'm eric jones and i represent

monahan safar duchamp plc llc the

appellate in this case

the trial court got it right the trial

court properly granted summary judgment

um for several reasons first of all

despite

mr pedersen's failure to completely

comply with rule 56 the court did

consider

all evidence submitted by both parties

um

second reviewing the evidence submitted

by both parties the court properly found

that there was no dispute of material

fact and that is not even the

appellate's

palance argument on appeal and applying

established legal principles the court

found that the firm was entitled to

judgment as a matter of law on each of

the four claims

asserted and this court should affirm

at its core this case is a simple

compensation dispute

and the entire case rests upon

a single otherwise unremarkable

conversation between mr patterson and

his supervisor

attorney brian monaghan in this

conversation

which uh was many in which mr patterson

complained about his compensation

mr patterson did express his hopes and

aspirations

for his career future at the firm

according to him he explained that he

thought

a reasonable trajectory for himself

would be one in which after five years

he would be a partner earning a hundred

thousand dollars a year

and according to the plaintiff or the

appellant um

attorney monahan responded by saying i

think that's reason

that's it there really is no more to

this case that is the entire factual

foundation of mr pedersen's claims

that these facts completely fail to

support a single cause of action

mr patterson points to nothing that is

action

now i'll focus on the details in a

moment but at the outset

i submit to the court that the four

claims of penalties asserts fail

for the following reasons the promissory

unstoppable case and the fraud claim

with the exception of

the fact that fraud requires a showing

of actual fraudulent intent has a much

higher bar

they're both essentially the same claim

which is that mr pedersen believes

that he was induced to stay at the firm

by a representation that mr monaghan

made

but both claims fail at the outset

because

the statement that mr pettison

attributes to mr monaghan was

clearly a mere expression of judgment

opinion

aspiration that cannot support a cause

of action as a matter of law

second of all mr patterson did not rely

to his detriment

on a single thing anybody at the firm

did or said

it's about his entire career at the firm

he was always looking for the exit door

the only reason he didn't leave was

because he didn't get a better offer

but he didn't stay because of any

inducement by what mr

mr monaghan supposedly said finally

the uh with regard to these two claims

the alleged statement concerns a state

of facts

five years in the future we will never

know whether or not mr patterson ever

would have met his aspirations

because he quit three years before these

events were supposed to have happened

so he can't quit after only two years

and then run to a court seeking a remedy

for some trajectory about what should

have happened three years from now

with regard to the unjust enrichment

claim frankly that can be dismissed in

short order

mr patterson was compensated very well

for his services

and on top of his originally agreed upon

salary he received pay raises

13 000 bonuses he cannot claim there's

an injustice here

and then finally with regard to the

public policy claim

uh first of all mr patterson the facts

demonstrate

he resigned his job um

and in fact there is no evidence in the

record that anybody said

you're fired uh he quit the firm

documented his resignation in a letter

which alternatively said to the extent

you didn't quit you are here by

tremendous but

there was no uh grand statement as he

mentioned

um more importantly there is no

public interest implicated by this case

this case is the epitome

of private contractual disputes between

two parties that does not um

implicate any uh public policy

whatsoever

now um i i did want to very briefly

touch on a procedural issue in the case

which was that

in response to our motion for summary

judgment where we properly supported the

motion with a statement of material

undisputed facts

uh mr patterson did not respond at all

to that statement

he just ignored it um so i mean

literally the facts presented by the

firm were

undisputed um and

the court properly deemed the facts

undisputed but

this is not any kind of gotcha type of

procedural argument because the court

did nevertheless explicitly state in its

opinion

that it considered record evidence

submitted by the appellant

and i don't think the court limited its

consideration to just documents i think

the court

considered any kind of record material

submitted

um but the court did not account for the

conclusion statements

other than uh it creating a housekeeping

issue

for the trial court on what was or

wasn't contested

um did the lack of compliance with rule

56 play any part in the outcome here

um no other than the highlight that the

facts really are not disputed and does

there's nothing that warrants a jury

resolution in this case factually

and that being said i will move on to

the legal merits of the case

um with regard to promise sorry estoppel

it is as mr patterson mentioned

an essential element that there be a

specific indefinite

promise there is nothing in the record

in this case that shows

that the firm made a specific or

definite promise

um there was nothing promissory at all

uh

there was simply an expression of

judgment that mr monaghan

felt mr patterson's hopes were

reasonable

um that's not promissory it's it's not

an inducement it's not a

misrepresentation

um so we we submit that

that is simply um it's as a matter of

law inadequate to float the claim

uh but also i want to get back to what i

mentioned in my introduction which is

that

there is no evidence whatsoever of

detrimental reliance

you know the record actually shows that

mr patterson is actively

engaged in a job search for the two

years he was working so he did not

refrain from continuing to seek other

opportunities

um his his statement of facts refers to

a plan

he had that but for the job that

monaghan safar duchamp he

might have looked for jobs out of state

but the materials he cites in his

statement do not refer to a plan at all

there was no plan to leave the state to

the contrary the only evidence of mr

patterson's career plan was to return to

vermont

he was a vermonter who came back after a

clerkship in nevada

to return to vermont for to work

that's the only plan we have in the in

the record with regard to what his

career

plan was going to be um

more importantly after he quit in early

2018

there's no evidence that he actually

looked for work out of state

the alternative to working at the firm

was he set up his own law firm here in

vermont

where he has stayed ever since so um his

self-serving statement that

he might have looked for jobs out of

state is again wholly inadequate to

support

a claim of detrimental reliance which

under this court's rulings requires a

substantial and material change in

position

we contend that the appellant has no

evidence whatsoever

that he materially or substantially

changed his position with regard to

anything

um with regard to the fraud claim um

i i want you to go back to justice

carroll's question

about doesn't that require showing a

fraudulent intent

yes um and there's no evidence anywhere

on the record

in this case of fraudulent intent um

not to mention the fact that fraud would

also require a showing by

clear and compelling evidence so he

fails not only for

insufficiency and evidence but also

could not possibly meet that standard of

proof

um there's there simply was no

representation of fact much less a

misrepresentation of that

and again like with the promissory

estoppel claims uh there's no evidence

of detrimental reliance

that would be necessary for a fraud

count um and furthermore

uh again he he inflicted his own harm

to the extent his aspiration for was

something that could happen five years

in the future

and he himself quit uh after only two

with regard to the unjust enrichment

count um

frankly i don't understand it i never

did

mr pedersen was paid handsomely and

clearly at market rates

for his services he started at 55 000

a year he was earning 70 in the second

year of his employment

um that is a a solid compensation

package

uh here in vermont for his services so

to suggest that somehow

the circumstances here um

are so inequitable and so unjust that an

additional award is just

untenable mr jones can you conceive of

any possibility

of an unjust enrichment claim from an

associate

uh to a law firm where

something would occur that would allow

that type of cause of action to occur

not when services that are being

provided by the associate are within

within the scope of services

contemplated by the parties with

the job um and by that i mean there's a

um there's a case that i believe mr

patterson cited

uh it wasn't in a law firm setting but i

think the principles would apply

but the employee actually was asked to

do something above and beyond

wholly different from what they were

originally hired to do

expected additional compensation for the

additional services but that's not the

facts of this case

an associate attorney who was brought on

to provide

uh associate assistance to the firm's

partners um

who only does that scope of work and

know more than what was contemplated by

the parties uh

then in fact compensated as agreed

then no i can't i don't think there can

be an unjust enrichment

case in that situation

moreover mr patterson's argument at one

point

it sounds like he's quite literally

saying that receipts that are earned by

the firm on his time

that exceed the salary he was paid is

somehow money that he's entitled to

under an

unjust enrichment plan theory

um you know clearly that's not how law

firms work that's not capitalism that's

not the law

[Music]

and then finally with regard to the

public policy count

the claim is essentially wrongful

termination

but we submit mr patterson was not

terminated

he resigned now i know he says i didn't

intend to resign

in a self-serving argument before this

court but the facts are the facts

and the undisputed facts in this case

are that he decided after getting

a raise in march 2018 that he was

sufficiently insulted

and he had to leave he then contacted

representatives of westlaw and lexus to

set

up his own accounts telling the

representatives that he

was exploring opening his own firm he

then set out to copy

client files off the firm's uh client

um data service

systems he then also copied all of his

emails

all of his calendars and his contact

information for his entire time at the

firm

um he then issued written notice to the

firm in which he said i must now

find a job at another firm later that

day in a meeting with the partners when

asked whether there's

anything that could be done for him to

stay he said there is no way

i can stay and he confirmed that he was

looking for other work

those undisputed facts clearly

established that he had resigned

this position that he took the steps to

end the employment

having resigned he doesn't then get to

decide

i'll leave when i find another job the

firm has

every right to say well you're resigning

we accept your resignation and we accept

it as of today

and that is not wrongful termination

even if

as part of that resignation notice the

appellant as in this case

suggests a severance payment and offers

in exchange for the severance payment

for release of claims

that does not implicate public interest

um even if he had uh

been fired rather than resign are you

conceding

by your argument that that would be

wrongful at that point

not at all you know i'm simply

establishing that the facts in this case

we don't even get the public policy

because he did resign

but even if you know this was a

determination

you know he were to say i think i have

these claims against you and the firm

were to have said

well in that case you're fired that does

not violate public policy

now it could it could bother a public

policy if he had certain information

that would

um be detrimental to the firm on the way

they were

doing something uh that was retaliatory

i mean that is a possibility fair point

there's a category of claims that

are specifically protected you know like

the claim you just mentioned there or

discrimination claims under the fair

employment practices act which

explicitly as a matter of statute say

that

you cannot be retaliated against first

certain claims under the statute

but from a common law claim to

compensation

which is this case i would say no

and in fact the prior cases from this

court

uh suggest as much two examples of

cake of cases where the court found that

it was merely

private contractual rights at issue were

assertions to vacation pay or sick pay

uh before there was a statute um those

claims were found to be

not implicated threats of making those

claims were found to be um not

enough to support public policy um

refusal to sign a non-compete agreement

was

private and contractual not public

policy to

arise the level of public policy there

needs to be some

collateral public interest um for

in the whistleblower example you just

gave justice cohen that would be an

example of a collateral public interest

that's also in play or for example the

case

with this uh wrap up your argument

i see that i'm out of time and i

apologize uh i i will conclude

uh but for these reasons and the reason

stated in our brief we believe this

court should affirm the trial court

thank you thank you very much how much

time do we have please

propellant has one minute and 30 seconds

remaining

all right council

thank you your honor uh again i will

rely on my briefs

for most claims and i will attempt to

focus the remainder of my time on the

public policy issue

i will speak quickly and just try to get

out some additional arguments for the

court's consideration

the vermont fair employment practices

act and other statutes

i have retaliation provisions long

standing in the state

and not only does this show the public

policy it also

would be bolstered if a common law

exception were also found because the

uniformity would help employees better

understand

that they had protection under the law

and this would decrease the chilling

effect not only in the

common law but also the statutes helping

those statutes have more effect

additionally the economic considerations

also lean towards this public policy as

if employees feel more able to

enforce agreements with their

employation they will be more willing to

enter into agreements for those

employees

and that will increase the economic

efficiency of the employer employee

relationship

do you have any cases does that or i

mean isn't that

um determinated for for not getting paid

what you think you're worth

or you leave because you're not getting

paid for what you're worth

isn't that a sufficient basis under any

circumstance

where it's not retaliatory other than

the fact that you're dissatisfied with

the compensation package

um if i understand your honors question

correctly

um the my argument on the policy is

simply that

um an employee is fearful

for termination it is going to be less

will less willing to

enforce any agreement they enter into

with an employer

for fear of losing their jobs so if

there's an exception under public policy

then employees will be more willing to

enter into agreements with their

employers because they will feel they

can

enforce those agreements

thank you thank you your honor thank you

both for your arguments

please call the conclusion of the

hearing the next hearing for the court

is scheduled for 2pm this afternoon

thanks thanks to both of you thank you

bye thanks