What is Civil Litigation

	Practice Areas
	Personal Injury Auto Accidents Truck Accident Motorcycle Accidents Medical Malpractice Slip and Fall Wrongful Deaths Bankruptcy Law Civil Litigation Employment Law Workmen's Compensation Dog Bite Cases Product Liability
	Articles
	Minor Impact, Major Injury Whiplash Accident
	Case Results
	$1.7 Million - Construction Accident $1.32 Million - Failure to Diagnose Cervical Cancer $1.26 Million - Product Liability Award $1.2 Million - Underinsured Motorist Award $1.2 Million - Fall from Stairwell $1.0 Milion - Structured Payout Settlement $900,000 - Automobile Accident Settlement $900,000 - Failure to Diagnose Breast Cancer $900,000 - Failure to Properly Diagnose Breast Cancer $800,000 - Failure to Diagnose Cervical Cancer $750,000 - Automobile Accident $612,500 - RSD injury $600,000 - Unnecessary Surgery


Employment Law
Anyone who has completed a job application is familiar with the expression of being employed at-will. These words are written at the bottom of each job application, usually right before the candidate's signature. Although familiar, not many really understand what it means. According to Wikipedia, at-will employment is a relationship between employer and employee in which either party can terminate the relationship without liability if no contract exists for a definite term. Before the case of Toussaint versus Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, British employment law dictated that an indefinite employment term was presumed to be for one year. In this case, Charles Toussaint was hired by Blue Cross Blue Shield in 1967. There was no written contract, so his employment was for an indefinite term. Mr. Toussaint was given an employee policy handbook which promised to release employees for 'just cause' only. According to his testimony, he stated that when he inquired about his job security, he was told that he would be employed as long as he continued to do his job. In 1972, Mr. Toussaint was terminated. The courts ruled in favor of Mr. Toussaint finding that he was discharged without 'just cause' giving birth to the U.S law of at-will employment. The court's opinion on the subject was offered in the belief that although there is no established definite term of employment, an employee should still legally have job security and the employer should remain true to its promise set forth by its employee handbook.
If an employer fails to abide by its own policies, it creates a breach of contract because the handbook itself is deemed as an implied contract. The burden rests on the terminated employee to prove that the breach of contract exists. While the at-will concept was set in place so that an employer can terminate an employee at any time, as in downsizing of a mass of people, there are still limitations upon the employer's ability to do so without reason. For instance, an employer can not terminate an employee based on the conditions set forth by the many statutes which govern the rights of employees and fall under the umbrella of employment discrimination. Statutes such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, to name a few. In addition, due process protection requires that an employee have a fair procedural process before they are terminated for a liberty such as free speech or property interest. As the world changes, employment law continues to change. Employers are finding new ways to deal with the employee issue by outsourcing or forming contract for hire relationships. In this type of relationship there is no ambiguity of an existing contract because at the beginning of the relationship all the terms are set forth in written form. If the parties are in agreement, the relationship is formed marked by their signatures on the document.