Bench policies for consulting companies

I was living in NC when I received an offer from a consulting company in NY. Before accepting the job, I made sure to cover issues (verbally and through email) such as the 'bench' and what would happen when the work at my particular client was ever canceled or ended. They assured me that they could keep a bench for short amounts of time, and also that if the work at my client ended, I would move to another client. Well, when the work at my client ended, they didn't have anything else for me, so I expected to be on the bench, (per what they told me) at least for a short amount of time, but instead they let me go literally the same day that the work at my client ended.
They claim that their bench policy changed and they couldn't afford to keep a bench, however they never told me this policy changed in the three-and-a-half months I worked there.
Since it is NY, the contract says it is at-will employment, however due to what they told me regarding bench policies, do I have a case?

1 answer  |  asked Sep 6, 2001 09:29 AM [EST]  |  applies to New York

Answers (1)

David M. Lira
When the Employer Says One Thing and Does Another

You last sentence kind of suggests that employers in NY have to include at will language in employment contracts. They do not. A NY employer may enter into a contract for a definite term or which restricts the conditions under which an employee may be terminated. Provisions like these pull the employment relationship out of the at-will catagory. If an employer hires an employee, and if nothing else is said, the relationship, which is inherently contractual, even if there is no written contract, is assumed (a judge would say, presumed) to be at-will.

Your situation is interesting, but I believe, if you were to sue your employer, you would likely lose.

On the one hand, your case is something like a famous NY Court of Appeals case. In this case, the court found that the employment relationship was not at-will because the employer made certain representations to the employee before hiring, and the employee relied on the representations, going through the time and expense of relocating. However, one big difference between your situation and this famous case is that the employee in that case was fired almost as soon as he was hired, so that I believe a court would say the case does not apply to your situation.

You weren't with your employer long, so that some attorneys might disagree with me and say your situation is sufficiently close to this famous case. The only way to prove who is right is to file a lawsuit.

I have seen more than a few cases say that, after an employee is hired, an employer can modify policies, without any advanced warning or discussion with employees. If the employees do not like the policy, their remedy is to quit. In other words, I believe a court would say in your case, unless you have a written agreement providing otherwise, that the employer could change the bench policy, and fire you dispite the representations made to you at the time of hire.

Only yesterday I read a case in which an employee handbook said one thing in one place, but in another place said that the employment relationship was at will. Because of the at-will statement, the court refused to enforce the other handbook provision against the employer. In other words, in NY State, an employer can get away with lying to employees, as long as the employers recite the magic words of at-will employment somewhere, such as in a handbook, application or agreement.

I find this aspect of the employment at will doctrine very disturbing. However, I can also say that the effects of the employment at will doctrine are soften to at least some extent by other developments in employment law.

posted by David M. Lira  |  Sep 7, 2001 08:50 AM [EST]

Answer This Question

Sign In to Answer this Question

Related Questions with Answers

Have an Employment Law question?