Hayes v. K-Mart Corporation
Minnesota Court of Appeals
665 N.W.2d 550 (2003)
- Written by Samantha Arena, JD
Facts
Gloria Hayes (plaintiff) worked at a K-Mart (defendant) store. As per K-Mart policy, Hayes was to receive an annual wage adjustment each November. After not receiving the adjustment in November 2000, Hayes met with a store manager in March 2001, who gave Hayes the adjustment and promotion and a raise in connection with the promotion. Hayes requested an additional hourly raise. The manager told Hayes “he would do something about [it].” Upon learning of the manager’s intent to leave his K-Mart position, Hayes again asked the manager about the raise. Although the manager told Hayes he would “take care of it before he left,” Hayes did not receive the raise. As a result, Hayes quit, filing for unemployment. The unemployment law judge found Hayes ineligible for benefits because she quit her job without good cause attributable to K-Mart. Hayes appealed, arguing that the manager’s oral promise of a raise became part of Hayes’s employment contract with K-Mart, and K-Mart’s failure to deliver the raise constituted both a breach of contract and good cause to quit. A representative of the Department of Employment and Economic Development commissioner concluded that although the manager made and breached a promise to give Hayes a raise, Hayes was ineligible for unemployment benefits because she failed to establish the specific amount of the raise promised.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Schumacher, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.