Case Name: REPUBLIC SYSTEMS AND PROGRAMMING, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMPUTER ASSISTANCE, INC., Computer Assistance of Hartford, Inc., Andrew N. Vignola and N. Roger Geddes, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1971-03-19
Citations: 440 F.2d 996
Docket Number: No. 421, Docket 34663
Parties: REPUBLIC SYSTEMS AND PROGRAMMING, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMPUTER ASSISTANCE, INC., Computer Assistance of Hartford, Inc., Andrew N. Vignola and N. Roger Geddes, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 440
Pages: 996–1001

Head Matter:
REPUBLIC SYSTEMS AND PROGRAMMING, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMPUTER ASSISTANCE, INC., Computer Assistance of Hartford, Inc., Andrew N. Vignola and N. Roger Geddes, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 421, Docket 34663.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued Jan. 20, 1971.
Decided March 19, 1971.
William J. Egan, New Haven, Conn. (S. Robert Jelley, Wiggin & Dana, New Haven, Conn., on the brief), for appellant.
Donald McPartland, Waterbury, Conn. (Upson, Secor, Greene & Cassidy, Waterbury, Conn., on the brief), for appellees Computer Assistance of Hartford, Inc. and Andrew N. Vignola.
Lewis Segal, Hartford, Conn. (Murtha, Cullina, Richter & Pinney, Hartford, Conn., on the brief), for appellee Computer Assistance, Inc.
Peter J. Carolan, Waterbury, Conn. (Jeremiah M. Keefe, Zipoli & Keefe, Waterbury, Conn., on the brief), for appellee N. Roger Geddes.
Before MEDINA, HAYS and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
We affirm on the opinion of Judge Blumenfeld in the district court. 322 F.Supp. 619 (D.Conn.1970).
It should be emphasized, as stated in the opinion, that the defendants' action violated no contractual obligation. Defendants, unlike the employees in Sperry Rand Corp. v. Rothlein, 241 F.Supp. 549, 554, 559 (D.Conn.1964), did not have employment contracts. To impose liability upon the defendants for failure to notify their employer before terminating their employment would, in effect, grant to their employer protection for which it was unwilling to bargain.