PURCELLS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT N. MYERS, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Purcells, Inc. appeals a judgment awarding former general manager Myers $9,443.84 for alleged breach of employment contract. The court reverses, holding that the new management structure and duties outlined in the April 4, 1973 letter did not constitute an unreasonable restriction or change of duties contemplated by the original employment contract.
The court held that the duties and roles imposed in the April 4th letter did not constitute a breach of the employment contract. To recover for breach based on a change in duties, an employee must establish that the new duties fall outside the contemplation of the original contract. Here, the new duties did not constitute a reduction in rank, imposition of uncontemplated duties, obliteration of contemplated duties, or reduction to a subordinate position. Therefore, when Myers voluntarily chose to terminate his employment, he was not entitled to damages.
[1] An employee seeking damages for breach of an employment contract based on a reduction in rank or change in duties must establish that the requested duties were not contem…
[2] A change in an employment contract's duties does not constitute a breach if the new duties are not unreasonable restrictions and do not reduce the employee to a subordina…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“In order to recover on a claim for breach of an employment contract by virtue of a reduction in rank or a change or obliteration of duties, the employee must establish that the duties requested of him are not within the contemplation of the employment contract.”
States the legal standard for when a change in employment duties constitutes actionable breach
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMyers worked as general manager for Purcells under the original ownership. After new ownership took control, the company underwent a management restru…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Reduction In Rank cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant seeks reversal of a final judgment awarding appellee $9,443.84 as damages for breach of an employment contract by appellant.
We have heard oral arguments in this cause and have carefully examined the record on appeal and the briefs submitted by the parties. Upon our consideration thereof, we conclude that the trial court erred in awarding appellee damages for an alleged breach of employment contract. Due to the fact that appellee never worked one day under the new management structure, the trial court’s judgment must have been based solely on the letter of April 4, 1973, which defined appellee’s duties as general manager under said new management. We have studied said letter in conjunction with the testimony regarding appellee’s prior duties and obligations and in connection with the testimony regarding the nature of the new management which would be located in Jacksonville, rather than in New York as before. We can not agree with the construction which the trial court gave to such letter, and we find that the duties and obligations imposed in said letter did not constitute an unreasonable restriction of the appellee’s employment contract. To hold otherwise would require appellant to relinquish complete control of the business to a person whose abilities were partially unknown to the new ownership, and assume a position as a mere observer of the conduct of the business. In order to recover on a claim for breach of an employment contract by virtue of a reduction in rank or a change or obliteration of duties, the employee must establish that the duties requested of him are not within the contemplation of the employment contract. We find that the duties and roles placed upon appellee in the April 4th letter did not constitute a reduction in rank nor an imposition of uncontemplated duties nor an obliteration of contemplated duties, nor did said letter reduce appellee to the position of a subordinate. When appellee voluntarily chose to terminate his employment based upon said letter, he was not entitled to damages against appellant.
This cause is reversed with directions to enter judgment in favor of appellant.
Reversed.
JOHNSON, Acting C. J., BOYER, J., and EASTMOORE, E. L., Associate Judge, concur.