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

P worked for Prentice-Hall. D solicited P to work for D. D's representative, aware of P's position with Prentice-Hall, assured his prospect that, since his company's firm policy was not to terminate employees without 'just cause,' employment by it would, among other things, bring him the advantage of job security. P even signed an application which stated he would be subject to the provisions of D's 'handbook on personnel policies and procedures.' The handbook stated that '[the] company will resort to dismissal for just and sufficient cause only, and only after all practical steps toward rehabilitation or salvage of the employee have been taken and failed. However, if the welfare of the company indicates that dismissal is necessary, then that decision is arrived at and is carried out forthrightly.' P drank the cool aid and switched jobs and forfeited all his accrued fringe benefits and a salary increase proffered by Prentice-Hall to induce him to remain in its employ. During the next 8 years, P got promotions and raises and routinely rejected other offers of employment. In February 1977, he was discharged for “lack of application.” D moved to dismiss, and it was denied. The Appellate Division reversed holding that P was an at will employee. P 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.