Robert J. Skalka v. Fernald Environmental Restoration Management Corporation
178 F.3d 414 | Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | 1999
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
Four workers sued FERMCO (an environmental contractor) for age discrimination and breach of contract after being terminated. The court upheld age discrimination claims for one worker (Skalka) who was the oldest in his peer group and had superior performance ratings, but rejected the same claims for another worker (Conover). The court threw out all breach of contract claims, ruling that general promises about fair treatment don't create binding employment contracts under Ohio law.
Key Takeaways
- •Vague fairness promises in employee handbooks or verbal assurances won't protect you legally—only specific, detailed contract terms are enforceable
- •Age discrimination claims succeed when you can show older workers were treated worse than younger peers with similar qualifications; document performance ratings carefully
- •If you're terminating workers, ensure decisions are based on documented performance issues, not age, and apply standards consistently across all age groups
General fairness promises do not constitute specific guarantees of continued employment.
Frequently Asked Question
If my employer promised fair treatment, can I sue for wrongful termination?
No, not based on general fairness promises alone. Courts require specific, detailed contract language to enforce employment agreements. Vague assurances about treating employees fairly don't create binding legal obligations. You need written terms that clearly guarantee continued employment or specific conditions for termination.
Related Cases
Luis E. Garcia, M.D. v. Copenhaver, Bell & Associates, m.d.'s, P.A., Defendant-Third Party St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, Third Party
Whether a defendant qualifies as an 'employer' under ADEA is a substantive element of the plaintiff's claim, not merely a jurisdictional question, and must be decided by a jury rather than dismissed by the judge under Rule 12(b)(1).
Intergen N v. v. Grina
A party cannot be compelled to arbitrate disputes unless it has agreed to do so; InterGen, a non-signatory to the arbitration agreements, is not bound by arbitration clauses in contracts signed by other parties.
Travis County v. Pelzel & Associates, Inc.
Local Government Code § 89.004's presentment requirement is a condition precedent to suit, not a waiver of sovereign immunity, and a county does not waive immunity by withholding contract payments under liquidated damages clauses.
Hamon Contractors, Inc. v. Carter & Burgess, Inc.
The economic loss rule bars post-contractual fraud claims when the alleged fraud arises from duties implicated by a party's performance of contractual terms, even where the fraud is intentional.
Robert Lilley, Cross-Appellee v. Btm Corporation, Cross-Appellant
Lilley was properly determined to be an employee under the ADEA and Elliott-Larsen Act, and the court affirmed his retaliatory discharge claim but reversed the denial of prejudgment interest and remanded for recomputation of costs.
County Commissioners v. J. Roland Dashiell & Sons, Inc.
An express written contract bars quasi-contractual claims for unjust enrichment when the contract addresses the subject matter of the claim.