Reason for firing

[PlayerRep]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't one of the key aspects of the Yellowstone case that the terminated employees contract allowed him to be terminated for cause without payment of remaining wages by the employer? Thus the court ruled the contract had no term and the wrongful discharge laws would apply.

Is that correct?

No, for the umteenth time, the YC case involved a contract with a provision allowing termination without cause that also provided for payment of severance. In the case, the court focused only on the ability of the employer to terminate the employment of the employee. It did not discuss or care about the continuing or severance payment. The court focused on a specific statutory provision, and ruled that the contract was not a contract with a specified term under the MT wrongful discharge statute.

 

[PlayerRep]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't one of the key aspects of the Yellowstone case that the terminated employees contract allowed him to be terminated for cause without payment of remaining wages by the employer? Thus the court ruled the contract had no term and the wrongful discharge laws would apply.

Is that correct?

Very close, but I think it was that the contract allowed for termination without cause, and at the same time purported to be for a specific term of years. The court did not appear to focus on wages/severance. I have no idea what the contracts we're talking about provide for, but some others have said they are similar.

Actually that's what I recalled, but it seemed very stupid as I typed. An employment contract that allows for termination without cause and without payment of remaining wages truly has no term as the employer can dismiss the employee at any time without cost. It's logical that the court ruled that the wrongful discharge laws apply as they are the only protection the employee has (the contract provides none).

I can't believe that Pflu's contract would allow termination without cause and without payment of remaining wages. If this is the case, how does Yellowstone apply?

Again, the YC case said that any contract that allowed the employer to terminate the contract without cause before the end of the term was not a contract for a specified period of time---without regard to whether there was or wasn't continuing payment or severance. The court acknowledged, but did not seem to care about, the severance amount. It's the ability to terminate the employment of the employee that is important.

 

[mcg]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't one of the key aspects of the Yellowstone case that the terminated employees contract allowed him to be terminated for cause without payment of remaining wages by the employer? Thus the court ruled the contract had no term and the wrongful discharge laws would apply.

Is that correct?

No, for the umteenth time, the YC case involved a contract with a provision allowing termination without cause that also provided for payment of severance. In the case, the court focused only on the ability of the employer to terminate the employment of the employee. It did not discuss or care about the continuing or severance payment. The court focused on a specific statutory provision, and ruled that the contract was not a contract with a specified term under the MT wrongful discharge statute.

Thank you and CDA below.

 

[MissingBigSky]

Only one Griz athlete has been charged with sexual intercourse without consent. He's been kicked off the team.

Rape. It's called Rape.

What's your point Missing.

I disagree with the firings too, but let's not sugarcoat things with terminology. Let's phrase it another way: "Only one Griz football player has been charged with rape. He's been kicked off the team." That's just a more honest way to write it, that's all.