L&E/contractual issues with BigLaw associate paycuts? Forum

[objctnyrhnr]

I actually found my offer letter. It is from over 5 years ago, so it had the $160,000 salary. But it basically said that I would be paid a market salary which currently is $160,000. My old firm also always pays cravath scale for salary and bonuses, but it only included language about discretionary bonuses. So I am guessing nearly all incoming associate offer letters include that type of discretionary language. Maybe for laterals it is defined, but I assume only for that first year they lateral.

True—it was from the first year I lateraled only.

This being said, I think if there’s a promise to stay at market (Easily defines in our industry) and then they drop substantially below it shortly thereafter, you might have a claim as well—consistent with the below.

And yeah the hypo is about whether there’s potential for civil action if a new at-will gig induces you to leave your other job and accept their offer based on a certain salary (even if only defined for one year), then they slash that salary well below your old gig within that first year.

[QContinuum]

whether there are any circumstances where its possible to overcome a MTD if an employer changes salary or otherwise contravenes its representations (i.e., where the at-will presumption wouldn't torpedo the claim out of hand). I would imagine its possible under certain circumstances. As someone mentioned, if an employer had someone move across country to start a new job based on knowingly false representations, and then terminated them after a week without cause, the employer may be on the hook for the moving expenses and other costs (though not for the salary denied via continued employment).

Thanks, kaiser. Would you be willing to address my earlier hypo?

If a candidate is promised a "starting salary" of $190k, but on day 2 their salary is reduced to $100k, it strikes me as plausible that there could be some fraud-based claim there.

Putting aside moving expenses and costs (which presumably wouldn't be an issue if both jobs were in the same city), would there really be no damages one could theoretically obtain in this situation, despite the pretty dang clear bad faith in cutting salary by almost half on day 2 without cause? Is the only remedy really just to quit?

I would think this would be distinguishable from the case of laying off the same employee on day 2. At-will employment means there's no reasonable expectation you'd be able to keep your job for X amount of time. The employer can decide at any time that your services are no longer required (just as you also have the right to decide to quit on day 2)*.

But cutting salary from $190k to $100k "feels" different to me. That doesn't involve the employer deciding to lay off the employee. It more smacks of bad faith, in that the employer almost certainly never expected it would live up to its $190k starting salary offer, but rather knowingly or recklessly made a false offer to induce the candidate to accept.

*Even in the layoff-on-day-2 case, I could imagine some hypos where there might be a strong argument for damages. Unbeknownst to you, a senior manager at your new employer is your boyfriend's great-uncle, who strongly disapproves of your relationship for whatever reason (let's stipulate that the disapproval is not due to a protected characteristic, like race or religion or sexual orientation). The new employer initially did not intend to hire you, but the senior manager exerts their influence to extend a "fake" job offer to you. The intent is to screw you over by offering a high salary/benefits/etc. to induce you to quit your current job, then laying you off on day 2. Not knowing this, you accept the offer, quit your current job, and start at the new employer. You then get laid off on day 2, as they'd planned all along. Is there really no recourse for you, even though the employer extended the job offer in bad faith?

[mickey_mouse]

Recent lateral, so dug up a couple offer letters. One says that I'll be coming in as a "X-year associate on our firm's salary scale. Currently, the salary for X-year associates is $X dollars per year." Firm pays market, but not even a reference to that. Another offer I got is worded as: "your starting salary is $X dollars per year. This salary will remain in effect through the end of the the calendar year 2020". To me, both phrasings seem to provide wiggle room.

[objctnyrhnr]

whether there are any circumstances where its possible to overcome a MTD if an employer changes salary or otherwise contravenes its representations (i.e., where the at-will presumption wouldn't torpedo the claim out of hand). I would imagine its possible under certain circumstances. As someone mentioned, if an employer had someone move across country to start a new job based on knowingly false representations, and then terminated them after a week without cause, the employer may be on the hook for the moving expenses and other costs (though not for the salary denied via continued employment).

Thanks, kaiser. Would you be willing to address my earlier hypo?

If a candidate is promised a "starting salary" of $190k, but on day 2 their salary is reduced to $100k, it strikes me as plausible that there could be some fraud-based claim there.

Putting aside moving expenses and costs (which presumably wouldn't be an issue if both jobs were in the same city), would there really be no damages one could theoretically obtain in this situation, despite the pretty dang clear bad faith in cutting salary by almost half on day 2 without cause? Is the only remedy really just to quit?

I would think this would be distinguishable from the case of laying off the same employee on day 2. At-will employment means there's no reasonable expectation you'd be able to keep your job for X amount of time. The employer can decide at any time that your services are no longer required (just as you also have the right to decide to quit on day 2)*.

But cutting salary from $190k to $100k "feels" different to me. That doesn't involve the employer deciding to lay off the employee. It more smacks of bad faith, in that the employer almost certainly never expected it would live up to its $190k starting salary offer, but rather knowingly or recklessly made a false offer to induce the candidate to accept.

*Even in the layoff-on-day-2 case, I could imagine some hypos where there might be a strong argument for damages. Unbeknownst to you, a senior manager at your new employer is your boyfriend's great-uncle, who strongly disapproves of your relationship for whatever reason (let's stipulate that the disapproval is not due to a protected characteristic, like race or religion or sexual orientation). The new employer initially did not intend to hire you, but the senior manager exerts their influence to extend a "fake" job offer to you. The intent is to screw you over by offering a high salary/benefits/etc. to induce you to quit your current job, then laying you off on day 2. Not knowing this, you accept the offer, quit your current job, and start at the new employer. You then get laid off on day 2, as they'd planned all along. Is there really no recourse for you, even though the employer extended the job offer in bad faith?

Seconded all around.

[trebekismyhero]

I actually found my offer letter. It is from over 5 years ago, so it had the $160,000 salary. But it basically said that I would be paid a market salary which currently is $160,000. My old firm also always pays cravath scale for salary and bonuses, but it only included language about discretionary bonuses. So I am guessing nearly all incoming associate offer letters include that type of discretionary language. Maybe for laterals it is defined, but I assume only for that first year they lateral.

True—it was from the first year I lateraled only.

This being said, I think if there’s a promise to stay at market (Easily defines in our industry) and then they drop substantially below it shortly thereafter, you might have a claim as well—consistent with the below.

And yeah the hypo is about whether there’s potential for civil action if a new at-will gig induces you to leave your other job and accept their offer based on a certain salary (even if only defined for one year), then they slash that salary well below your old gig within that first year.

Perhaps, but my old firm would definitely lay ppl off before deviating from market salary so probably a moot issue.

[The Lsat Airbender]

This all depends on whether you knowingly entered into an employment relationship with a TTT like Cadwalader in the first place. Caveat emptor.

If you can resign on day 2, which you can, you can get fired on day 2. That give-and-take is the whole premise of at-will employment. If you get told to take a salary cut or leave, that's objectively better than a layoff for most people because you have two options instead of the one.

Should employee protections be different? Probably. But it's worth noting that, if it weren't so easy to can biglaw associates, firms would be much less able to throw $190 at green 25-year-olds who haven't even taken the bar yet. Fancy lawyers are the sort of sophisticated and in-demand employee for whom at-will is a pretty reasonable paradigm.

[objctnyrhnr]

This all depends on whether you knowingly entered into an employment relationship with a TTT like Cadwalader in the first place. Caveat emptor.

If you can resign on day 2, which you can, you can get fired on day 2. That give-and-take is the whole premise of at-will employment. If you get told to take a salary cut or leave, that's objectively better than a layoff for most people because you have two options instead of the one.

Should employee protections be different? Probably. But it's worth noting that, if it weren't so easy to can biglaw associates, firms would be much less able to throw $190 at green 25-year-olds who haven't even taken the bar yet. Fancy lawyers are the sort of sophisticated and in-demand employee for whom at-will is a pretty reasonable paradigm.

People keep using the hire/fire analogy to my salary slash hypo, and I think it’s a bad one.

If a company or firm or whatever induces you to leave your old high paying job under the promise of a much higher salary then on day two they say “yep nope” and slash it to well below your old gig’s salary, there’s at least plausibly a cause of action there’s EVEN IF it’s “at will” and other mushy language in the offer letter. This is literally why promissory estoppel exists—to protect people who rely on a promise to their detriment that’s ultimately false. Even without a binding contract, this is a promise; if it wasn’t a promise which could reasonably be relied upon, people would have no real incentive to jump to higher paying gigs (as at will employees).

And like I said early, add an allegation that they knew or should have known this would happen and you get past the MTD phase on misappropriation. Find even one damning email about this during ediscovery, and I’m thinking you get past MSJ on the tort/s as well.

[ksm6969]

If a company or firm or whatever induces you to leave your old high paying job under the promise of a much higher salary then on day two they say “yep nope” and slash it to well below your old gig’s salary, there’s at least plausibly a cause of action there’s EVEN IF it’s “at will” and other mushy language in the offer letter. This is literally why promissory estoppel exists—to protect people who rely on a promise to their detriment that’s ultimately false. Even without a binding contract, this is a promise; if it wasn’t a promise which could reasonably be relied upon, people would have no real incentive to jump to higher paying gigs (as at will employees).

And like I said early, add an allegation that they knew or should have known this would happen and you get past the MTD phase on misappropriation. Find even one damning email about this during ediscovery, and I’m thinking you get past MSJ on the tort/s as well.

It doesnt matter (especially in NY) whether its a contract or promissory estoppel claim (or even fraudulent misrepresentation claim). The issue you have is the same: What promise did they make that turned out to be false? They promised to hire you, and they did that. Did they promise not to fire you within X time? Did they promise not to fire you except for cause? IF they did, you have a good claim. But, as has been said repeatedly, big law firms will generally be smart enough not to make such promises.

So go back to step 1, and tell me which promise you think the firm made in your hypo that was false?

(You would have to argue that because the firm KNEW you were moving across the country, AND they encouraged you to do so, that there was an IMPLIED promise that they would not fire you in two days. Jurisdictions that use this line of thinking call it "additional consideration." As far as I know, NY generally doesnt do this. Its possible to win on this, but it is very, very shaky and would require very bad facts).

[objctnyrhnr]

If a company or firm or whatever induces you to leave your old high paying job under the promise of a much higher salary then on day two they say “yep nope” and slash it to well below your old gig’s salary, there’s at least plausibly a cause of action there’s EVEN IF it’s “at will” and other mushy language in the offer letter. This is literally why promissory estoppel exists—to protect people who rely on a promise to their detriment that’s ultimately false. Even without a binding contract, this is a promise; if it wasn’t a promise which could reasonably be relied upon, people would have no real incentive to jump to higher paying gigs (as at will employees).

And like I said early, add an allegation that they knew or should have known this would happen and you get past the MTD phase on misappropriation. Find even one damning email about this during ediscovery, and I’m thinking you get past MSJ on the tort/s as well.

It doesnt matter (especially in NY) whether its a contract or promissory estoppel claim (or even fraudulent misrepresentation claim). The issue you have is the same: What promise did they make that turned out to be false? They promised to hire you, and they did that. Did they promise not to fire you within X time? Did they promise not to fire you except for cause? IF they did, you have a good claim. But, as has been said repeatedly, big law firms will generally be smart enough not to make such promises.

So go back to step 1, and tell me which promise you think the firm made in your hypo that was false?

(You would have to argue that because the firm KNEW you were moving across the country, AND they encouraged you to do so, that there was an IMPLIED promise that they would not fire you in two days. Jurisdictions that use this line of thinking call it "additional consideration." As far as I know, NY generally doesnt do this. Its possible to win on this, but it is very, very shaky and would require very bad facts).

Appreciate the acknowledgement that this could make a claim.

But two things: my hypo isn’t about firing. It’s about salary slashing, early on into the job. As I mentioned earlier, I see this as fundamentally different than simply firing an at Will employee and I think that other posters’ attempts to conflate the two scenarios have been misguided. (This being said, I provided a link earlier to a d mass case where the promissory estoppel claim for firing an at Will employee made it past mtd phase.)

Second: contrary to what you said above, I believe the state of mind (that they knew x or y at the time of the offer) only becomes an issue in the tort context (Ie deceit/misrepresentation). I don’t think it factors into the promissory estoppel analysis. Here, promissory estoppel analysis would likely depend on whether an offer at a certain salary is a statement that one could reasonably rely upon. I think it is. Again, if people can’t rely on offer letters for new jobs, switching gigs becomes very risky as a matter of policy.

[ksm6969]

Second: contrary to what you said above, I believe the state of mind (that they knew x or y at the time of the offer) only becomes an issue in the tort context (Ie deceit/misrepresentation). I don’t think it factors into the promissory estoppel analysis. Here, promissory estoppel analysis would likely depend on whether an offer at a certain salary is a statement that one could reasonably rely upon. I think it is. Again, if people can’t rely on offer letters for new jobs, switching gigs becomes very risky as a matter of policy.

A few things. First, reliance is generally considered "consideration" in NY-- so if someone makes a promise and you detrimentally rely on the promise, there is generally a good argument there is a contract (that is, you dont have to get into promissory estoppel; it essentially limits the use of promissory estoppel and moves it to contract ). What you are then dealing with is interpretation of an implied contract-- how to interpret the actions of the parties, and whether those actions IMPLY a promise not to fire someone for X amount of time. The whole question here -- whether contract claim or promissory estoppel claim-- is whether the employers actions objectively created an implied promise to employ for X amount of time (or an implied promise not the fire X at-will). What the parties knew at the time they carried out certain actions absolutely plays into how a reasonable person would interpret their actions, and hence into whether the court would find an implied contract/implied promise based on those actions. (What the parties knew also comes into play in another way in promissory estoppel claims, but whatever). If a party to a contract KNOWS the other party would interpret something in a certain way, then generally they are held to that interpretation.

Also, if you are trying to argue there was some kind of implied promise based on the cumulative circumstances, you will probably run into an issue that the firm almost certainly had some disclaimer saying "we can fire you at any time for any reason." So you are arguing they implied a promise that is directly contradicted by express language-- good luck.

(Also, reducing someones salary and firing them are the same in this context. You can think of it as firing them and offering to re-hire them at a new salary).

[The Lsat Airbender]

(Also, reducing someones salary and firing them are the same in this context. You can think of it as firing them and offering to re-hire them at a new salary).

Exactly. Like I said upthread, salary-cut-or-you're-fired is objectively a better deal than you're-fired (unless, with the former, they try to play games with unemployment insurance, but I highly doubt a firm would bother).

[ghostoftraynor]

L&E attorneys,apparently Brown Rudnick hadn't paid 2019 bonuses. And, now they are only paying a third with the rest to "come" at a late date. That has to be a claim, right?

[QContinuum]

For some reason, even though objct's talking about salary cuts, everyone responding keeps talking about layoffs.

So, let's talk about layoffs. Would anyone care to address my layoff hypo previously posted ITT? Here it is again:

You interview at New Employer and receive a generous offer, which you accept. Unbeknownst to you, a senior manager at New Employer is your boyfriend's great-uncle, who strongly disapproves of your relationship for whatever reason (let's stipulate that the disapproval is not due to a protected characteristic, like race or religion or sexual orientation). New Employer initially did not intend to hire you, but the senior manager exerted their influence to extend a "fake" job offer to you. The intent is to screw you over by offering a high salary/benefits/etc. to induce you to quit your job, then lay you off on day 2. Not knowing anything about this plot, you accept the offer, quit your job, and start at New Employer. You then get laid off on day 2, as they'd planned all along. To rub salt in the wound, New Employer then tells you all of the above, and says, "ha ha! at-will employment, sucka!" Is there really no recourse for you, even though New Employer concedes the job offer they extended - which appeared genuine to you, and which you accepted as a result - was, in fact, a "fake" job offer that was extended solely to induce you to quit your old job?

[objctnyrhnr]

For some reason, even though objct's talking about salary cuts, everyone responding keeps talking about layoffs.

So, let's talk about layoffs. Would anyone care to address my layoff hypo previously posted ITT? Here it is again:

You interview at New Employer and receive a generous offer, which you accept. Unbeknownst to you, a senior manager at New Employer is your boyfriend's great-uncle, who strongly disapproves of your relationship for whatever reason (let's stipulate that the disapproval is not due to a protected characteristic, like race or religion or sexual orientation). New Employer initially did not intend to hire you, but the senior manager exerted their influence to extend a "fake" job offer to you. The intent is to screw you over by offering a high salary/benefits/etc. to induce you to quit your job, then lay you off on day 2. Not knowing anything about this plot, you accept the offer, quit your job, and start at New Employer. You then get laid off on day 2, as they'd planned all along. To rub salt in the wound, New Employer then tells you all of the above, and says, "ha ha! at-will employment, sucka!" Is there really no recourse for you, even though New Employer concedes the job offer they extended - which appeared genuine to you, and which you accepted as a result - was, in fact, a "fake" job offer that was extended solely to induce you to quit your old job?

Yeah so this one is even easier than some that I was posing. It’s textbook deceit/fraudulent misrepresentation. Also probably promissory estoppel.

[ksm6969]

For some reason, even though objct's talking about salary cuts, everyone responding keeps talking about layoffs.

So, let's talk about layoffs. Would anyone care to address my layoff hypo previously posted ITT? Here it is again:

You interview at New Employer and receive a generous offer, which you accept. Unbeknownst to you, a senior manager at New Employer is your boyfriend's great-uncle, who strongly disapproves of your relationship for whatever reason (let's stipulate that the disapproval is not due to a protected characteristic, like race or religion or sexual orientation). New Employer initially did not intend to hire you, but the senior manager exerted their influence to extend a "fake" job offer to you. The intent is to screw you over by offering a high salary/benefits/etc. to induce you to quit your job, then lay you off on day 2. Not knowing anything about this plot, you accept the offer, quit your job, and start at New Employer. You then get laid off on day 2, as they'd planned all along. To rub salt in the wound, New Employer then tells you all of the above, and says, "ha ha! at-will employment, sucka!" Is there really no recourse for you, even though New Employer concedes the job offer they extended - which appeared genuine to you, and which you accepted as a result - was, in fact, a "fake" job offer that was extended solely to induce you to quit your old job?

Yeah so this one is even easier than some that I was posing. It’s textbook deceit/fraudulent misrepresentation. Also probably promissory estoppel.

What do you think was misrepresented? Assume that the offer said explicitly "we can fire you at any time (including on the second day) for any reason (including because a senior manager has personal dislike of you)." Sorry, but they didnt mispresent anything, UNLESS they at some point promised they wouldnt fire you the second day. This is not "textbook" fraudulent misrepresentation (at least in NY, its actually textbook example of what is NOT fraudulent representation-- "An at-will employee, who has been terminated, cannot state a fraudulent inducement claim" ... Laduzinski v Alvarez & Marsal Taxand LLC). It is also not promissory estoppel, UNLESS they actually make a promise not to fire you. Please, one time, type out what promise you think they made that they breached. Until you do that, stop commenting. There is no "promissory estoppel" unless there was a clear and unambiguous promise that was breached.

To answer your question QC: Some states may identify such actions as a breach of some implied obligation of good faith. New York almost certainly wouldn't (unless the facts were so bad that the court finds it as an opportunity to change the law). Unless during the hiring process they took some actions that could be interpreted as a promise not to fire you the second day (and again, if they explicitly reserved the right to fire at will, that would weigh pretty heavily against any implied promise), or they made some other false representation that induced you, you would not have a good claim. There would have to be some representation they made that was fraudulent. MAYBE you could argue misrepresentation by omission or something, but you would be hoping courts would broaden the law based on bad facts, and not simple application of existing law.

[Anonymous User]

For some reason, even though objct's talking about salary cuts, everyone responding keeps talking about layoffs.

So, let's talk about layoffs. Would anyone care to address my layoff hypo previously posted ITT? Here it is again:

You interview at New Employer and receive a generous offer, which you accept. Unbeknownst to you, a senior manager at New Employer is your boyfriend's great-uncle, who strongly disapproves of your relationship for whatever reason (let's stipulate that the disapproval is not due to a protected characteristic, like race or religion or sexual orientation). New Employer initially did not intend to hire you, but the senior manager exerted their influence to extend a "fake" job offer to you. The intent is to screw you over by offering a high salary/benefits/etc. to induce you to quit your job, then lay you off on day 2. Not knowing anything about this plot, you accept the offer, quit your job, and start at New Employer. You then get laid off on day 2, as they'd planned all along. To rub salt in the wound, New Employer then tells you all of the above, and says, "ha ha! at-will employment, sucka!" Is there really no recourse for you, even though New Employer concedes the job offer they extended - which appeared genuine to you, and which you accepted as a result - was, in fact, a "fake" job offer that was extended solely to induce you to quit your old job?

Yeah so this one is even easier than some that I was posing. It’s textbook deceit/fraudulent misrepresentation. Also probably promissory estoppel.

What do you think was misrepresented? Assume that the offer said explicitly "we can fire you at any time (including on the second day) for any reason (including because a senior manager has personal dislike of you)." Sorry, but they didnt mispresent anything, UNLESS they at some point promised they wouldnt fire you the second day. This is not "textbook" fraudulent misrepresentation (at least in NY, its actually textbook example of what is NOT fraudulent representation-- "An at-will employee, who has been terminated, cannot state a fraudulent inducement claim" ... Laduzinski v Alvarez & Marsal Taxand LLC). It is also not promissory estoppel, UNLESS they actually make a promise not to fire you. Please, one time, type out what promise you think they made that they breached. Until you do that, stop commenting. There is no "promissory estoppel" unless there was a clear and unambiguous promise that was breached.

To answer your question QC: Some states may identify such actions as a breach of some implied obligation of good faith. New York almost certainly wouldn't (unless the facts were so bad that the court finds it as an opportunity to change the law). Unless during the hiring process they took some actions that could be interpreted as a promise not to fire you the second day (and again, if they explicitly reserved the right to fire at will, that would weigh pretty heavily against any implied promise), or they made some other false representation that induced you, you would not have a good claim. There would have to be some representation they made that was fraudulent. MAYBE you could argue misrepresentation by omission or something, but you would be hoping courts would broaden the law based on bad facts, and not simple application of existing law.

Anon because this relates to an unfortunate set of circumstances that I'm dealing with right now. I'm familiar with the premise that you can't bring a fraudulent inducement claim in the at-will employment context if an employer hires and then lays you off immediately thereafter.

on the promissory estoppel front, though, what if said employer made verbal assurances that i'd have job security, and there was no integration clause in the offer letter or any other onboarding doucumentation i received / signed?

i know this isn't legal advice - spitballing here. thanks.

[Chrysogonus]

This thread is crazy. You found one case that made it past mtd phase and all of a sudden the Incredibly strong at will presumptions in all states mean nothing. add to this that covid is an obviously non fraudulent or deceitful motivation for firings (despite being the motivation for the thread) and we are in la la land with respect to l&e claims as a result. Of course unless an actual contract takes this out of at will employment.

[objctnyrhnr]

This thread is crazy. You found one case that made it past mtd phase and all of a sudden the Incredibly strong at will presumptions in all states mean nothing. add to this that covid is an obviously non fraudulent or deceitful motivation for firings (despite being the motivation for the thread) and we are in la la land with respect to l&e claims as a result. Of course unless an actual contract takes this out of at will employment.

The question was Essentially just whether there was any potential for viability, obviously with a likely uphill battle to follow, or whether “at will employment” as a concept would stop all claims like this in its tracks.

The question wasn’t “are these claims slam dunks,” from which it would follow that the concept of at will employment is meaningless in the face of them. Nobody is saying that.

[ksm6969]

on the promissory estoppel front, though, what if said employer made verbal assurances that i'd have job security, and there was no integration clause in the offer letter or any other onboarding doucumentation i received / signed?

i know this isn't legal advice - spitballing here. thanks.

That would, in theory, change the calculus substantially (in NY probably would be breach of contract, not promissory estoppel, but it doesnt really matter what you call it). The argument then would be you were never an at-will employee to begin with. Obviously the more explicit the promise and the reliance, the better. Any contradicting language specifying you were at-will would obviously make it worse.

[Chrysogonus]

This thread is crazy. You found one case that made it past mtd phase and all of a sudden the Incredibly strong at will presumptions in all states mean nothing. add to this that covid is an obviously non fraudulent or deceitful motivation for firings (despite being the motivation for the thread) and we are in la la land with respect to l&e claims as a result. Of course unless an actual contract takes this out of at will employment.

The question was Essentially just whether there was any potential for viability, obviously with a likely uphill battle to follow, or whether “at will employment” as a concept would stop all claims like this in its tracks.

The question wasn’t “are these claims slam dunks,” from which it would follow that the concept of at will employment is meaningless in the face of them. Nobody is saying that.

Hope you re-read your first post. No mention of at will employment and touches on unconsionability (?) as a potential route for lit.

-Chryso (hope i didnt accidentally anon again)

[objctnyrhnr]

This thread is crazy. You found one case that made it past mtd phase and all of a sudden the Incredibly strong at will presumptions in all states mean nothing. add to this that covid is an obviously non fraudulent or deceitful motivation for firings (despite being the motivation for the thread) and we are in la la land with respect to l&e claims as a result. Of course unless an actual contract takes this out of at will employment.

The question was Essentially just whether there was any potential for viability, obviously with a likely uphill battle to follow, or whether “at will employment” as a concept would stop all claims like this in its tracks.

The question wasn’t “are these claims slam dunks,” from which it would follow that the concept of at will employment is meaningless in the face of them. Nobody is saying that.

Hope you re-read your first post. No mention of at will employment and touches on unconsionability (?) as a potential route for lit.

-Chryso (hope i didnt accidentally anon again)

Okay, that’s a fair point. My original post was really just thinking out loud. To the extent that my and others’ earlier posts didn’t clarify that this was a “hey thoughts on whether this theory could possibly go anywhere?”-type question, they should have—that’s my bad.

And yeah As I’ve said, I’m not a L&E lawyer. I’m a commercial litigator, but the majority of our L&E lit at my firm is handled by a different group. Of course I had some very general knowledge about the notion of at will employment but nothing beyond that until I was enlightened by other posters. Never dealt with it in my career as a litigator or during my clerkship, so apologies for the initial ignorance.

And if this sounds like goal post moving, I do understand why Based on the text of the initial posts. If this thread has clarified anything for me, it’s really how uphill of a battle it would be. That said, I have also become more convinced that with the right facts it could be viable. In the last page or two, I do believe it’s been clarified that this is specifically what’s being discussed here.

[Chrysogonus]

Agreed. Was interesting to see where at will could be defeated as a presumption.

[trebekismyhero]

I’m only a student myself. You should check the Reddit chart being updated every day about what firms are doing in the lawschool forum.

As of today, Cravath and DPW have guaranteed post-grad offers in the V10 with pay. I think firms less capable of doing that who haven’t already announced will do something like Stroock (canceling program, 15k stipend plus offer) or Hogan (reduced weeks/pay of SA plus offer). The harshest outcome in the V100 so far is Arent Fox’s outright cancellation without pay yet a guaranteed offer... and I still consider that a good outcome.

Greenberg Traurig guaranteed post-grad offers as well, if a V60 can do it, a V10 is going to look pretty shitty. I think guaranteed post-grad offers are going to be the norm, with variations among firms guaranteeing summer pay

I don't say this with ill will but a "guaranteed" offer means nothing. If the situation further devolves, a lot of these "guaranteed" offers are going to disappear.

Yeah, unless they are sending over signed offer letters now, there isn't a lot binding them other than bad PR

[objctnyrhnr]

I’m only a student myself. You should check the Reddit chart being updated every day about what firms are doing in the lawschool forum.

As of today, Cravath and DPW have guaranteed post-grad offers in the V10 with pay. I think firms less capable of doing that who haven’t already announced will do something like Stroock (canceling program, 15k stipend plus offer) or Hogan (reduced weeks/pay of SA plus offer). The harshest outcome in the V100 so far is Arent Fox’s outright cancellation without pay yet a guaranteed offer... and I still consider that a good outcome.

Greenberg Traurig guaranteed post-grad offers as well, if a V60 can do it, a V10 is going to look pretty shitty. I think guaranteed post-grad offers are going to be the norm, with variations among firms guaranteeing summer pay

I don't say this with ill will but a "guaranteed" offer means nothing. If the situation further devolves, a lot of these "guaranteed" offers are going to disappear.

Yeah, unless they are sending over signed offer letters now, there isn't a lot binding them other than bad PR

There’s a recent thread somewhere in which, to my surprise, a bunch of people think even that wouldn’t be binding given the nature of at-will employment (FWIW, I think they’re wrong).

[trebekismyhero]

I’m only a student myself. You should check the Reddit chart being updated every day about what firms are doing in the lawschool forum.

As of today, Cravath and DPW have guaranteed post-grad offers in the V10 with pay. I think firms less capable of doing that who haven’t already announced will do something like Stroock (canceling program, 15k stipend plus offer) or Hogan (reduced weeks/pay of SA plus offer). The harshest outcome in the V100 so far is Arent Fox’s outright cancellation without pay yet a guaranteed offer... and I still consider that a good outcome.

Greenberg Traurig guaranteed post-grad offers as well, if a V60 can do it, a V10 is going to look pretty shitty. I think guaranteed post-grad offers are going to be the norm, with variations among firms guaranteeing summer pay

I don't say this with ill will but a "guaranteed" offer means nothing. If the situation further devolves, a lot of these "guaranteed" offers are going to disappear.

Yeah, unless they are sending over signed offer letters now, there isn't a lot binding them other than bad PR

There’s a recent thread somewhere in which, to my surprise, a bunch of people think even that wouldn’t be binding given the nature of at-will employment (FWIW, I think they’re wrong).

Not to derail the thread and re-litigate that thread, but I think most ppl agree a signed offer letter is binding. The question would be if it is still binding after your first day. Either way, unless there is a signed offer letter, GT's guarantee isn't a real guarantee