I’m working on a business law multi-part question and need the explanation and answer to help me learn.

The Case of the Fired Employee

Gwendoline Stormier, a vice president of the Deacon Trailer Company, enjoyed a wonderful reputation as a capable and trustful financial officer. She, her husband, and their two children lived in a beautiful suburb in a large, comfortable home. The CEO of a competitor firm, Multinational Trailers Ltd., wanted to hire Stormier for a similar position and offered her an increased salary and many employee benefits. The CEO of Multinational had extensive phone conversation with her about this offer.The CEO offered to email a written memorandum to Stormier but she said that wasn necessary. Stormier accepted the offer, sold her home, moved to the city in which her new employer was located, and purchased a home there. She did not have a written contract, but she was told she had a great future with the company and was given a salary of $150,000 per year with a promise of a promotion every 6 months for the first two years. A bonus could be paid to her after 18 months on the job.

Four months after Stormier joined the company, she was fired because of a downturn in the trailer production business, requiring a scaling back of expenses at Multinational . She sued Multinational for a breach of contract. 

The Trial

During the trial, Gwendoline testified about the reputation she had earned while at Deacon Trailer and the wonderful life that she and her family had enjoyed. She told of the difficulties involved in moving, the expense of buying a new home, and the uprooting of her family. She described the difficulties involving in selling her new home and looking for a new position.

An officer of Multinational testified about the recession in the trailer industry and how economic conditions were such that if Multinational failed to cut expenses, it might be forced out of business. She also mentioned that Stormier had turned down the offer of a written memorandum regarding the terms Stormier and the CEO had discussed.

The Arguments at Trial

Gwendolineàattorney argued that although she did not have a written contract, oral representations made to her implied that her job would last longer than a year; that she was going to earn a yearly salary indicated that her employment would, at a minimum, last at least two years. The attorney stressed the difficulties involved in the move and the expenses occurred by the Stormier family, arguing that it would be unfair to terminate her employment except for cause relating to her activities. The argument was also made that the mployment at will$octrine was an outmoded and unfair concept and should not be applied based on the facts in this case.

Multinationalàattorney argued that the lack of a written contract, the fact she had turned down a written memorandum, and the existence in the state in which Multinational was located of the %rmination at will$octrine gave International the right to terminate Stormier’s employment at any time. No reason was necessary , particularly when economic conditions required cutting at Multinational’s expenses, including termination of the employment of executives with high salaries.

Questions for Discussion

1. Based on the facts of this case, who do you think should prevail, Stormier or Multinational ? Why?
2. Are there other facts that would make it easier for the court to decide who should prevail?
3. Do you feel that the employment at will doctrine should no longer apply? If so, who should make the change, the legislatures or the courts? Why?