Commonly Asked Questions
"If I am offered a new job and the employer cancels the job offer before I begin, do I have any recourse?"
The short answer to this question is no. In Connecticut an employee without a contract is subject to termination of the employment agreement without recourse.
The Connecticut Court of Appeals recently issued a ruling stating that the at-will employment doctrine also extends to offers for at-will employment, which was a matter of first impression for the Court.
In Petitte v. DSL.Net, Inc., 102 Conn.App. 353, 925 A.2d 457 (2007), plaintiff was offered a position with the defendant, DSL.Net, Inc. In its offer letter, defendant stated that the offer of employment was not a guarantee of employment and that the employment was “at will, which means that either you or the company can terminate your employment at any time for any reason, with or without cause.” The plaintiff then quit his current position, relying on the offer of employment. Unfortunately, when the plaintiff reported for work on the scheduled start date, he was told that there were some issues regarding his employment and suggested that he return home and wait to be contacted. Later that evening, a defendant’s representative telephoned the plaintiff and told him that on the basis of the information that defendant had received from some references, they were withdrawing the offer of employment.
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on July 19, 2004. The three count complaint alleged breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation and infliction of emotional distress. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment which was granted by the court on all three counts.
The Appellate Court of Connecticut upheld the decision of the lower court on all three counts. The Court reasoned with regard to the breach of contract claim, that the employment at-will doctrine, which shields the employer from liability for terminating an employment relationship, also shields the employer for withdrawing an offer of at-will employment even before the employee commences work. The court reasoned that to do otherwise would, in essence, give greater rights to employees who have not started working yet, compared to at-will employees who had already commenced employment.
As to the plaintiff’s second cause of action for negligent misrepresentation, the Court found that the employment offer did not constitute negligent misrepresentation because it “(1) did not guarantee employment and (2) stated that any employment relationship was at will.” The court went on to say that the plaintiff’s “reliance on the offer as a guarantee of employment was not justifiable as a matter of law.” The court held that the letter was “fraught with risk” because the employer had “reserved unfettered discretion to end the employment relationship at any time.”
The Court also held that the plaintiff’s claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress could not stand because the “defendant was exercising the rights it expressly had reserved in the [offer] letter.” Therefore, although the Court recognized that the defendant’s conduct in this matter was “hurtful and caused distress, it was not extreme and outrageous, as a matter of law.”
Because there are several public policy exceptions to the at-will employment doctrine, it is important to always speak with an attorney to discuss your rights. Please contact us if you have any questions.
