It is important for employees to retain a copy of their employee handbook or employment manual both while they are employed and after they are severed from employment. You may or may not be entitled to certain rights and benefits depending on the language in the manual and other conditions. Your employer is not required to give you a copy of the manual once you are no longer an employee. Providing hard copies of employee handbooks was the initial way employers typically distributed them. Today, it is common for employers to publish them online and notify the employees as to their existence and the link. If your employer distributes your employment manual electronically, you should retain it while still employed in manner that you can access whether or not you are still employed. The same should be done with all subsequent versions of the handbook addendums or amendments to the handbook. Note: this does not mean that all employer information contained online should be saved by you as it could contain company trade secrets, trademark infringement, or other protected business information, and doing so is generally illegal.
Statements in Employment Manual under Certain Conditions Constitute a Binding Contract
In a 1985 case, Woolley v. Hoffmann-La Roche, 99 N.J. 284, the NJ Supreme Court held that when an employer of a substantial number of employees circulates a manual that, when fairly read, provides that certain benefits are an incident of the employment, a court, instead of "grudgingly" conceding the enforceability of those provisions, should construe them in accordance with the reasonable expectations of the employees. However, the employer must have actually distributed the handbook to employees at large and there must have been an intention that the employer intended it to be binding terms.
The Woolley Doctrine
The Woolley Court held for the first time that in certain appropriate circumstances, representations made in an employee handbook or manual are enforceable. In Woolley, the Court looked at reasonable expectations of the employees and concluded that the manual was an offer that sought formation of unilateral contract. Plaintiff continued to work when he had no obligation to continue to work. His continuance to work was an acceptance by him of the offer and made the offer binding. The Court stated, “The provisions of the manual .... shall be considered binding unless the manual elsewhere prominently and unmistakably indicates that those provisions shall not be binding or unless there is some other similar proof of the employer's intent not to be bound.”
Although Woolley was applied broadly in a variety of factual patterns, see, e.g., Shebar v. Sanyo Business Systems, 218 N.J. Super. 111 (App.Div.1987), certif. granted 108 N.J. 667 (1987); Giudice v. Drew Chemical Corp., 210 N.J. Super. 32 (App.Div.1986), certif. den. 104 N.J. 465 (1986), other NJ courts have so narrowly construed the Woolley holding to find facts that distinguish it from Wooley and to find that no implied contract was created. One such example of this was in a 1988 decision in the Appellate Division, Linn v. Benefit Commercial Corp., 226 N.J. Super. 74. The Court found the employer, appellate, terminated the employee due to the appellant's loss of work actuated by elimination of the job itself due to legitimate economic and business reasons, and it was not as a bad faith pretext to arbitrarily terminate his employment.
There Are Two General Principles for Statements in a Handbook to Be Enforced under Woolley:
1) Widespread Dissemination to the Employees
The handbook must have been distributed or generally disseminated to all or to the relevant portion of the workforce. This forms a basis for the legal presumptions that employees were generally aware of and could have reasonably relied upon the handbook’s terms and that the employer intended to be bound by the terms.
2) Sufficiently Clear Legally Binding Language
The provisions of the employee handbook enforced in Woolley that were at issue were found by the Supreme Court to be explicit and clear. These were vital to the Court’s decision that handbook in Woolley was intended to be binding and should be enforced. Contrarily, however the Court stated handbook provisions will not enforced in a case where, “no one could reasonably have thought it was intended to create legally binding obligations.”
Obscure, philosophical, or ambiguous terms in a handbook would not generally establish a reasonable expectation that the terms would be enforced. Appellate Division stated in Ware v. Prudential Insurance Co., “If the document was intended to serve as a handbook guaranteeing employee benefits, it would be reasonable to expect that it also would set forth those benefits.”
Disclaimers in Handbooks Negate Any Implied or Express Binding Contract
Most handbooks I have reviewed contain disclaimers that the terms within it do not constitute a binding contact. Some of examples of these disclaimers may say:
Regardless of what this manual states, the employer promises nothing and remains free to change all terms of employment.
No language in this handbook is binding on the employer; the employer promises nothing and can change all working conditions.
There is no promise of any kind made to any employee by statements contained in this manual.
This handbook does not constitute a contract, implied or express.
These disclaimers are valid, except the employer cannot violate the law. i.e., pay under minimum wage, or allow sex, disability or race discrimination, etc. If you are a member of a protected class and terms or benefits as stated in your handbook are not being provided to you, but they are being provided to other employees who are not in your protected class, you should contact this office today for a free consultation.
Let Me Fight for You.
Let me fight for you. Contractual rights are complex issues. If you think your employer is violating your rights, you should contact Hope A. Lang, Attorney at Law today for a free consultation. I accept employment cases from all over New Jersey. I have represented both public and private employees who were discriminated against in wages and pushed out of jobs for illegal reasons and was successful in recovering financial compensation for their emotional pain and suffering and moneys for lost wages, both for past lost wages and projected future lost wages.
If You Quit Your Job, You May Lose Right to Prevail in a Lawsuit.
In many instances of discrimination, if you quit your job, you may lose right to prevail in a lawsuit unless you first take certain legally required measures to preserve your job while you are still employed. If you are thinking of quitting, or think you will be fired, you should contact this office immediately for a free consultation to discuss your options in the safest way for you.
What You Can Do.
I am an aggressive and compassionate employment law attorney who is experienced in successfully representing all level of employees. I am successful in bringing employee lawsuits against governmental entities and private employers and recovering money for victims of age, race, sex, disability, sexual orientation, and other discrimination. If you think your employer is committing illegal acts against, you should contact this office for a free consultation.
Hope A. Lang, Attorney at Law represents workers throughout the entire state, including Hackensack, Jersey City, Newark, Irvington, Orange, East Orange, Trenton, Paterson, Montclair, Elizabeth, North Brunswick, Cherry Hill, Vineland, Union, Plainfield, Hamilton Township, Lakewood, Edison, Parsippany-Troy Hills, Franklin, Lakewood, and every NJ County, including Bergen, Hudson, Middlesex, Essex, Monmouth, Somerset, Ocean, Union, Camden, Passaic, Morris, Gloucester, Atlantic, Burlington, Camden Counties.