Court Opinion

ID: 9455780
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 19:33:10.392494+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:43.934537
License: Public Domain

FAIRCHILD, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
In my opinion, plaintiff is entitled to go to trial on the issue whether defendants made a reasonable determination that his work was unsatisfactory.
Defendants chose the language, for which they supplied the subtitle, “Duration and Termination of Assignment”. It was made clear that defendants did not promise to employ plaintiff after termination of his assignment to the Saudi Arabia project, but it seems equally clear to me from the full text of this section that they provided for termination of the assignment only upon one of four eventualities: (1) unsatisfactory service or conduct by plaintiff, (2) termination of the project by forces beyond defendants’ control, (3) termination at the request of plaintiff due to matters beyond plaintiff’s control, and (4) voluntary termination by plaintiff. Plaintiff’s right to termination pay was made to vary, depending upon which type of termination occurred.
Defendants asserted their reliance upon (1) in terminating the employment.
Although plaintiff was free to terminate at will, the personal and family disruption necessarily involved in the move to a distant country seems sufficient to prevent the contract from being illusory and to permit enforcement of defendants’ promise to continue his employment for 18 months subject to one of the eventualities specified.