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.

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

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.