Case Study Situation Go Fast Essay

perspective Go Fast is a motorcycle manufacturer in the Confederate United States. Though sales have been steady, profits have declined because of increase usable costs. The Board of Directors felt a fresh look at the operations side was needed. They developed a 5-year plan to increase operate efficiency and strict out to find someone to lead the effort. quaternion months ago, GO FAST found what they saw as the person to be the bare-assed operations managing director and develop a new operational plan to reduce costs. Jill Jones had an outstanding reputation as operations director for a manufacturer of a closely related product. While she was hardened in a different state and was happy with her ongoing moving in and lifestyle, she found the 5-year plan exciting. Besides, the twirl was too tempting to refuse.Jill was offered the position, including a satisfying increase in rents and benefits. She accepted the job, sold her sign, and purchased a home near her new job. H er husband runs an in-home business and her children had adapted well to the new community and schools. She did not have a written come down, but was obligationd a great future with GO FAST and was given a salary of $90,000 per year. With the economic downturn, sales for this past year were the lowest in cardinal years. The company needs to make drastic cost reductions or it could spirit bankruptcy. All senior managers agreed to a 25% pay cut. some(prenominal) other high-paid positions entrust be eliminated. Among them is Jill Jones operations director position.Published by DECA Related Materials. Copyright by DECA Inc. No patch of this publication whitethorn be reproduced for resale without written permission from the publisher. Printed in the United States of America.YOUR CHALLENGE The chief financial officer has been asked by the board of directors to investigate GO FASTS cartel to Jill Jones. You have been assigned the task of doing research. The board of directors ass umes their treaty with Mrs. Jones is temporary-at-will based on the law in the state, and therefore GO FAST has no obligation to her. You will prepare recommendations to be looked to the chief financial officer (CFO). Since the decisiveness is ultimately up to the CFO, your presentation should include, at a minimum 1. How you acquit Jill would react to the boards hard-line approach. 2. Possible ways to trade in with Mrs. Jones situation, including the positives and negatives of each. 3. Of these, you are to advise the CFO on the best course of put through, and how to present it to Jill. While the financial challenges of the company are not a secret, Jill does not yet know that her position has been targeted for elimination. Your presentation to the CFO will demoralize in one hour. As part of your research you have pulled a copy of The Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, as well as cases related to this exsert (see reference in practiceation tryd).The information in THIS s ection is the result of research done specifically for this case situation, and has been given to you to help you prepare your recommendations inside the allotted time. The judges will also receive this information, in auxiliary to the Case discover Situation and Your Challenge as presented.BACKGROUND informationThe following information admits background related to this situation.State Employment constabularyUnder state law, participation generally is considered to be at will, terminable by either party at any time. This means that an employer whitethorn terminate an employee with or without just cause, in the absence of an agreement constrictive the employees discharge to just cause or specifying the term of the employment. until now where an employer makes assurances seeming to mean job permanence, much(prenominal) assurances are generally considered chaste statements of policy indicating only at-will employment. However, state courts have also held that employee personn el manual provisions, if they fit out the requirements for formation of a biased write out, may become enforceable as part of a use up of employment. An agreement which includes a ascertain from one party but not from the other is called a slanted contract. A unilateral contract is, for example, where an employer forestalls to pay a certain wage if an employee does a certain task for a certain period of time. The employees performance of that task for that time makes him or her entitled to the promised wages.The promise of employment on particular hurt of unspecified duration, if presented in the form of an offer and accepted by the employee, will create a binding unilateral contract. These types of actions are referred to as promissory estoppel actions and they tolerate an exception to the employment-at-will doctrine. In redact to even off a contract, the employers personnel policy as set out in the personnel policy handbook essential be more than a general statement of policy and mustiness provide reasonably definite terms for a fact finder to act and apply in determining whether there has been a recrudesce of the contract arising from that handbook. General statements of policy by an employer do not meet the contractual requirements of an offer. Employees frequently couple claims that certain oral representations constitute an enforceable agreement with assertions that certain actions by the employer create an implied contract to terminate only for full(a) cause.For example, employees often contend that an employer has established a custom and practice such that employees are permitted to continue employment until retirement unless discharged for good and suitable cause. Such an allegation does not meet the requirement of a definite offer. Similarly, an employers commendations and approval of the employees performance do not substitute the employees at-will status. Severance pay is not required by legislation. Where it is provided by an employer or labor agreement, it must not be administrated in a discriminatory manner. Where it is provided, severance pay is considered wages in this state. The method of defrayment of severance pay may delay the employees eligibility for unemployment compensation benefits.promissory Estoppel The state Supreme Court recognized that, despite the absence of a contract in fact, courts may imply the existence of a contract in law by utilizing the principle of promissory estoppel. The doctrine of promissory estoppel is applicable when 1. A promise has been made 2. The promissory reasonably expect to induce action of a definite and substantial character by the promise 3. The promise in fact induces such action 4. The percentage require the enforcement of the promise in order to avoid damage. An estoppel may revoke from a promise of future performance. The doctrine of promissory estoppel is based in a promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action of forbearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promise and which induces such action or forbearance and is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise.Under the theory of promissory estoppel, liability on a contract may ensue withal if the detriment incurred by one party is not bargained for where it can be shown that the promisor should reasonably have expected its promise to induce some others detrimental action. The impairment-of-contract clause in the states governing body applies to an implied-in-law obligation created by promissory estoppel. The effect of promissory estoppel is to imply a contract in law where none exists in fact. When a promise is enforced pursuant to the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the remedy dispenseed for the breach may be limited as justice requires relief may be limited to damages measured by the promises reliance.RELATED CASE PRECEDENTS INFORMATIONThe following information is designed to provide samples of c ases that may influence decisions made related to the case situation. The participants must solve what, if any, relevance these Related Case Precedents have on this Case Study Situation. crab v. political program, Inc. (1981)The doctrine of promissory estoppel was applied by the court to grant damages to a pharmacist who accepted a job offer, resigned his current job and declined another job offer in reliance on this offer, but was terminated from his new job before he even had a chance to start it. Plan Inc knew that to accept its offer Grouse would have to resign his employment. Grouse promptly gave notice and informed Plan Inc that he had done so when specifically asked by them. Under these quite a little it would be unjust not to hold Plan Inc to its promise.Gorham v. Optical (1995) power employee was entitled to reliance damages based on theory of promissory estoppel, where he quit his previous job and declined any renegotiations with previous employer in reliance on promise of new job, and on his first day of employment went through hostile reinterview process that led to his immediate termination.Lewis v. self-assertion Society (1986)A promise of employment on particular terms of unspecified duration, if presented in form of an offer and accepted by employee, will create a binding unilateral contract.Pine River v. Mettille (1983)Generally speaking, promise of employment on particular terms of unspecified duration, if in form of an offer, and if accepted by employee, may create binding unilateral contract offer must be definite in form and must be communicated to the offeree.Goodkind v. University (1988)Whether a proposal by employer is meant to be an offer for a unilateral contract is determined by the outward manifestations of the parties, not by their subjective intentions, and employers general statements of policy do not meet the contractual requirements for an offer.Gunderson v. Professionals, Inc. (2001)To overcome the condition that employmen t is at will, an employee typically must establish clear and unequivocal language by the employer evidencing an intent to provide job security. General statements about job security, company policy, or an employers desire to retain an employee indefinitely are insufficient to overcome the presumption that employment is at will.Spanier v. Bank (1993)Terminated employee failed to show any demonstrate of offer for long-term employment in definite form so as to be entitled to recover for employers breach of implied cartel of good faith and fair dealing as result of his termination, where employees claims were based on subjective belief and his own inferences that employers trueness to commercial lending business would provide him job security and employers statements about developing this new area of business did not constitute long-term employment offer.