Woolley v. Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc.
Supreme Court of New Jersey
491 A.2d 1257, modified, 499 A.2d 515 (1985)
- Written by Sara Rhee, JD
Facts
Beginning in 1969, Richard Woolley (plaintiff) was employed as an engineering-section head for Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc. (Hoffmann) (defendant). Woolley did not have an employment contract with Hoffmann. In December 1969, Woolley received Hoffmann’s Personnel Policy Manual (manual). The manual included a termination clause, providing that employees would only be fired for cause, and setting forth a specific procedure to attempt to rehabilitate employees before resorting to termination. Hoffmann distributed the manual to all of its employees. In 1978, Hoffmann lost confidence in Woolley after discovering piping problems. Hoffmann terminated Woolley’s employment without following the procedures outlined in the manual. Woolley sued Hoffmann for breach of contract, alleging that the termination clause in the manual constituted a binding provision that prevented Hoffmann from terminating Woolley’s employment without cause. Hoffmann argued that the termination provision was not contractually binding and that Woolley could be fired without cause because he was an at-will employee. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Hoffmann. The appellate division affirmed. Woolley appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wilentz, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 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.
