Ok I have another question.

Production supervisor demoted back to production worker. Employee was notified at shift start today. Wage to be adjusted down accordingly, HR wants to make it effective on the upcoming check which is for last weeks work. I read the NJDOL site at length and couldn't find anything either way.

Does NJ require the employee to be notified before working hours at a lower rate?

This would be only one reduction to get the employee back to a wage more in line with the demotion.

Notification is always required, even if state labor law doesn't adress it.

That was my position however I need something to back it up.

Notification is always required, even if state labor law doesn't adress it.

Not necessarily, although it's really poor management practice not to.

The other problem is that the lack of clear legal rules does not always work out in the employer's favor. It might just mean that absent a law to the contrary, whatever the judge says goes. It is safer to make compensation changes on a go forward basis only after notification and not give the judge a chance to make up something.

Maybe 20 years ago a small claims court judge said that my then employer owed a terminated Exempt Salaried employee a full week's pay even though he had only worked several hours on Monday that week, and the then FLSA regualtion 29 CFR 541.118 made it clear that only that one day's pay for the initial/terminal week was due. The judge said he thought that the employee needed the money, that he did not care what federal rules were, and if we (the employer) did not like the decision, we could appeal it. And that was with clear law supporting the employer's actions previous. It would arguably be much easier for the judge to be activist if there were no clear opposing rules.

States are not required to have clear rules that address all issues and often they do not. That does not mean that judges have to find for the employer when this occurs.

Not necessarily, although it's really poor management practice not to.

Yes necessarily.

State laws may specificy how long a notice period the employer needs to give and penalties for not giving enough notice. If the state doesn't specify, then the employer can tell the employee about the pay cut a split-second before work starts if they wanted.

It's a matter of contract law. You know, offer, acceptance, all that good stuff?

Please note that "at-will" doesn't mean no contract. All at-will means is that the employment contract can be terminated at anytime and by either party.

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree, then.

Patty, if you think I'm wrong, point out where I am. I'm not some yahoo who can't admit when he's wrong.

By following the logic that no notice is neccessary, then an employee could come after an employer for a retroactive payraise. After all, no labor law prohibits it.


While the conventional wisdom that if there is no labor law that adresses a point then it is fair game, is right 99% of the time, in this case there is a supervening legality.

Please note that "at-will" doesn't mean no contract. All at-will means is that the employment contract can be terminated at anytime and by either party.
Sorry! At-will is not a contract, since contracts are interpreted by applying state law requirements and unless an contract directly limits "in a meaningful and special way" the employer’s right to terminate an employee without cause, then it's not a contract. In other words, the employer must expressly state its intent to terminate the employee only under clearly specified circumstances for it to be an employment contract.

Sorry! At-will is not a contract, since contracts are interpreted by applying state law requirements and unless an contract directly limits "in a meaningful and special way" the employer’s right to terminate an employee without cause, then it's not a contract. In other words, the employer must expressly state its intent to terminate the employee only under clearly specified circumstances for it to be an employment contract.

And you'd be wrong. At-will is the doctrine applied when a contract is for an undefined period of time and with no requirements imposed apon either party with regards to termination.

"At-will" means no contract that adresses a set length of employment and conditions of discharge.

"At-will" does not mean there is no contract in existence.

Take a look at the most basic "at-will" employment arrangement. It possesses all the elements required for a contract.

Offer/Acceptence: The employer offers to employ the employee, and the employee accepts.
Legal Purpose: Employment is almost always legal. An example of an illegal employment contract would be the employ of a "hitman."
"Meeting of the Minds": Meaning that both the employer and employee have agreed to the same thing. Also known as the "mirror image" rule.
Consideration: The employer exchanges money for the personal services of the employee.
Competency of the Parties: I'll assume that neither party is under the legal age to work or is mentally incapacitated.
Certainty of Terms: The employer agrees to pay the employee a set amount for a unit of work (hours, piece, pay period, etc).

So tell me again how if something has all the features of a contract, that it isn't a contract?

FYI: The "at-will" docterine is an extension of how courts interperate indefinite terms (terms that are not defined or given value in the contract). Courts either imply a term (the best example would be a sales contract were the price wasn't specified, the courts would use the FMV of the goods at the time the contract was signed as an implied term), or the courts won't enforce the term. In the case of length of employment, the is insufficent basis to imply a term so they won't enforce it.

And you'd be wrong. At-will is the doctrine applied when a contract is for an undefined period of time and with no requirements imposed apon either party with regards to termination.

"At-will" means no contract that adresses a set length of employment and conditions of discharge.

"At-will" does not mean there is no contract in existence.

Take a look at the most basic "at-will" employment arrangement. It possesses all the elements required for a contract.

Offer/Acceptence: The employer offers to employ the employee, and the employee accepts.
Legal Purpose: Employment is almost always legal. An example of an illegal employment contract would be the employ of a "hitman."
"Meeting of the Minds": Meaning that both the employer and employee have agreed to the same thing. Also known as the "mirror image" rule.
Consideration: The employer exchanges money for the personal services of the employee.
Competency of the Parties: I'll assume that neither party is under the legal age to work or is mentally incapacitated.
Certainty of Terms: The employer agrees to pay the employee a set amount for a unit of work (hours, piece, pay period, etc).

So tell me again how if something has all the features of a contract, that it isn't a contract?

FYI: The "at-will" docterine is an extension of how courts interperate indefinite terms (terms that are not defined or given value in the contract). Courts either imply a term (the best example would be a sales contract were the price wasn't specified, the courts would use the FMV of the goods at the time the contract was signed as an implied term), or the courts won't enforce the term. In the case of length of employment, the is insufficent basis to imply a term so they won't enforce it.
Well then you can explain that to Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Hamilton v. Segue Software, Inc., No. 00-10541 (5th Cir. 11/20/00) and tell them they are wrong or Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc., No. S124494 (August 3, 2006), or Petitte v. DSL.net, Inc., AC27557 (Conn. Ct. App., July 10, 2007). So all the judges are wrong and you are right?

Um.......... OK, I guess I'll just leave it at while we "should have" paid the previous week at the orignal wage there is nothing concrete telling us we need to.

I guess she could always file a claim however the actual dollar amount involved wouldn't be worth the trouble to most.

mlane, why not take the time to read Hamilton v. Segue Software, Inc., No. 00-10541 (5th Cir. 11/20/00) (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=5th&navby=case&no=0010541cv0)

...Hamilton did not receive or sign an "Employee Agreement"(1) until July 13, 1999. This document was a standard form employment contract setting forth the terms and conditions for employment at Segue, including, inter alia, rules governing conflicts of interest, confidentiality, and intellectual property rights. Paragraph seven of the signed Employment Agreement also included the language, "I understand that, unless expressly provided otherwise in any other written agreement signed by me an [sic] the Company by the Executive Vice President or CEO, my employment with the Company is 'at will' and that my employment may be terminated by the Company at will at any time with or without cause or notice."...

Hmmm, apperently the 5th circuit agrees with me that a contract can be at-will.

Had you read the case, you would have found out that the issue is not whether or not there was a contract, but if the contract was for a set term or not.

In that case, the court affirmed that there was a contract that could be terminated at-will by either party.

Segue still had a contractual obligation to pay Hamilton for time worked at the agreed rate. This would not be the case if "at-will" meant no contract as you posit.

mlane, how about Perkins v Ulrich (http://www.houston-opinions.com/files/14thCoA-2007-Perkins-v-Ulrich-by-Yates-employment-at-will.htm)

However, even in at-will employment situations, the parties can contract on other employment matters except those that would limit the ability of either party to terminate employment at will. Light v. Centel Cellular Co., 883 S.W.2d 642, 644 (Tex. 1994).


Is the judge wrong on this one?

Um.......... OK, I guess I'll just leave it at while we "should have" paid the previous week at the orignal wage there is nothing concrete telling us we need to.

I guess she could always file a claim however the actual dollar amount involved wouldn't be worth the trouble to most.


If you're looking for a statute or regulation, you likely won't find one. With few exceptions, contracts in the US aren't legislated. The closest you'll find to an official source, besides combing through case law, is the 2cnd Restatement of Contracts which is often refferenced by judges in interprepting contracts, and is widely thought to be the best compliation of the common law of contracts. After that, you're looking at law class texbooks

At-will only applies to the termination of employment. It is often misconstued to mean that there is no contract. All employment agreements, everywhere, are what is called a "unilateral contract," also known as a promise(to pay for labor) for an act(the labor). Once the labor is performed, youl have the obligation to pay an employee what you agreed to pay. If employee is "at-will" you are free to change it on a go forward basis.

Way to go TheRed,basic contract law falls into play,the employer cant welch on a deal,once the work is completed.The judge does have wide latitude,and can dismiss or find in favor of the employee in the interest of justice. Happens everyday in courts all over the country.This is basic contact law. Once an agreement with consideration is entered, and a party performs, the other party owes the consideration as agreed. Sorry, but this is so obvious no citation is needed. A party cannot unilaterally change the terms of an agreement with consideration after one party has performed. Anyone does not understand that has no business answering this post. "At-will" means your employment is presumed "at-will",and can be terminated "at-will". It does not mean they can change your salary once the work is done "at-will" thats ridiculous.
JoeC