Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
STEPHEN MEDWICK, MAXWELL PERRY, BRANDON RUSSELL, AND SCOTT PELUSO v. MADCON CORPORATION
Plaintiffs are commercial divers who were approached by defendant to assist with its contract for work at a facility in Guinea, West Africa (“the project”). Defendant sent, what it termed written offers of employment, to a number of commercial divers, including the three plaintiffs herein. The written offer of employment set forth details about compensation, benefits, and terms and conditions of their anticipated employment with defendant.
Plaintiffs accepted the offers. In furtherance and follow-up to said offers, plaintiffs waited for the project to start and did not seek other employment. Additionally, plaintiffs received inoculations, updated their passports, turned down other offers of employment, and underwent training for the project. Defendant's goal was to complete the project in 90 days, as bonuses were to be awarded based on completion date. One of the plaintiffs, herein, was given a $3,000.00 retainer.
The issue herein is whether defendant's written offer of employment is deemed an “at will” employment offer or a “limited term” employment offer. Ironically, when defendant tendered its written offer of employment, I agree it was an “at-will” employment offer, which was capable of being accepted or rejected. However, as a result of plaintiffs waiting for the project to start; not seeking other employment; receiving inoculations; updating their passports; undergoing training for the project; and, one plaintiff receiving a $3,000.00 retainer, defendant's “at-will” offer of employment morphed into a “limited term” employment offer, in which plaintiffs detrimentally relied.
I find the court of appeal disregarded the factual determinations made by and the discretion afforded to the trial court and substituted its opinion for that of the trial court. I would grant this writ, reverse the appellate court's decision, and reinstate the trial court's judgment in favor of plaintiffs, in toto.
GENOVESE, J., would grant for the following reasons:
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 2022-C-01352
Decided: November 16, 2022
Court: Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)