Spacesaver Systems v. Adam
Maryland Court of Appeals
98 A.3d 264 (2014)
Facts
Amy Hamilton terminated Carla Adam’s (plaintiff) employment with Spacesaver Systems, Incorporated (Spacesaver) (defendant). Spacesaver, a mobile-storage-equipment company, was started by Jack and Alyce Schmidt. After 20 years in business, the Schmidts transferred ownership and control of Spacesaver to their three children, Adam, Hamilton, and David Craig. The three siblings were employed pursuant to employment agreements. The agreements permitted Spacesaver to terminate employees for cause. Craig resigned from Spacesaver not long after the siblings executed the employment agreements. Hamilton and Adam began to have disputes about job duties and compensation. Hamilton eventually sent Adam a letter terminating Adam’s employment. Adam filed an action for breach of contract against Spacesaver. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, which the trial court denied. The trial judge found that the employment agreement created a lifetime contract and that Spacesaver had breached the contract. The trial judge awarded Adam damages for lost salary and commission. Spacesaver appealed to the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, which affirmed in part, finding Adam was not an at-will employee, and reversed in part. The Maryland Court of Appeals granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Adkins, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 709,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,500 briefs, keyed to 983 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.
