Cruz v. Visual Perceptions, LLC
2012 WL 2094360
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Cruz was hired as a laboratory manager in February 2006 by Visual Perceptions, LLC, and Aube, Jr. signed initial employment terms in February 2006, followed by a 2006 raise.
- In February 2007 Cruz provided handwritten terms; on March 1, 2007 they signed a document stating a 36-month period, April 1, 2007 to March 31, 2010.
- Aube terminated Cruz on October 16, 2008, leading Cruz to file a revised amended complaint in January 2010 with counts alleging breach of the March 1, 2007 contract and related claims for commissions.
- The trial court held the March 1, 2007 document created a definite-term contract terminable only for good or just cause, finding a breach due to no just cause.
- The trial court awarded Cruz damages from termination through contract end, plus medical expenses from loss of health insurance and an underpaid bonus; on appeal the court affirmed.
- Aube argued the 2007 agreement was an compensation agreement, not a guaranteed three-year employment term; the majority rejected this and upheld the definite-term contract finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the 2007 agreement create a definite-term contract? | Cruz argues the language unambiguously fixes a 36-month term. | Visual Perceptions contends it was only a compensation term, not guaranteed employment for three years. | Yes; the contract created a definite term lasting 36 months. |
| If definite-term, was Cruz an employee at-will or terminable only for cause? | Cruz contends termination without just cause violated the definite-term contract. | Defendants argue at-will status applies unless the contract explicitly restricts termination for cause. | The definite-term contract could be terminated only for good or just cause. |
| Are the awarded consequential damages for medical expenses recoverable/adequately supported? | Consecutive medical bills during loss of health insurance were foreseeable damages from breach. | The record lacks a basis to support the consequential damages award for medical expenses. | Record inadequate to review; court preserved damages but did not definitively justify them on appeal. |
| Was the record sufficient to support the trial court's method of calculating damages? | Damages including lost wages and health insurance costs were properly calculated from termination through end date. | Final paycheck and other amounts may have been miscalculated; an accounting was needed. | Damages affirmed; any issues with final paycheck were resolved on remand or withdrawn. |
| Does Gaudio v. Griffin Health Services Corp. apply to interpret the contract's ambiguity? | No ambiguity in the language; contract should be given effect as written. | There is ambiguity in the contract's first sentence; intent should be considered. | Court treated the language as unambiguous and gave effect to the definite-term construction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Slifkin v. Condec Corp., 13 Conn. App. 538 (Conn. App. 1988) (definite/terminable-for-cause under definite-term contract)
- Taravella v. Wolcott, 599 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2010) (employment for a fixed period requires specific terms)
- Thibodeau v. Design Group One Architects, LLC, 260 Conn. 691 (Conn. 2002) (at-will employment default; contract may modify)
- Somers v. Cooley Chevrolet Co., 146 Conn. 627 (Conn. 1959) (indefinite-duration contracts terminable at will)
- Gaudio v. Griffin Health Services Corp., 249 Conn. 523 (Conn. 1999) (implied contract from manual vs. express definite term)
- Briggs v. Briggs, 75 Conn. App. 386 (Conn. App. 2003) (damages assessment in contract breach context)
- DeLuca v. DeLuca, 37 Conn. App. 586 (Conn. App. 1995) (review of trial court factual predicates on appeal)