This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Pressman (P) presented evidence that his immediate supervisor, Pensak, engaged in a retaliatory campaign to get P fired. This began after P confronted Pensak with evidence that Pensak may have a conflict of interest. Dupont (D) presented evidence that P had been hired as a high-level scientist and had just failed to meet the high expectations. P was hired to develop D's medical imaging technology, and the record indicated that P received raises and positive evaluations from his superiors including Pensak. In January 1988, P met with Pensak to discuss his relations with a competing medical image company in that Pensak arranged for others to meet with P about equipment and P's knowledge of medical imaging technology. P then claimed that Pensak became very agitated and that is when the retaliations began. P was also given negative reviews and eventually terminated on April 12, 1989. D contended that the covenant of good faith and fair dealing was not present in at will employment contracts. P got the verdict and D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.