Izzo v. Freedom Graphics Systems, Inc., 3:15-cv-00602

Paul Izzo sued Freedom Graphic Systems, Inc. (FGS) for breach of an employment agreement, alleging FGS prevented him from contacting certain sales accounts and failed to pay office rent/commissions.
Izzo was hired via a March 2010 offer letter as "Director of National Strategic Accounts." The agreement did not state a fixed term but provided severance schedules tied to termination timing.
The contract was interpreted as an at-will employment agreement (indefinite term), permitting FGS to change employee responsibilities without breaching the agreement.
Izzo pointed to an "Account Assignment Responsibilities" appendix (dated March 23, 2010) and argued it created a contractual right to call on specified clients for the duration of his employment.
The appendix was labeled a list of responsibilities, included an "approximate yearly spend" column, and was dated—factors the court relied on as indicating it was not a standalone, irrevocable contractual promise.
Izzo moved for reconsideration of the court’s prior summary-judgment ruling for FGS; the court denied reconsideration and also denied defendant’s request for costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether reconsideration is warranted	Izzo argued the court overlooked facts/authority and the Appendix raises factual issues for a jury	FGS argued no controlling authority or new evidence undermines the summary-judgment ruling	Denied — Izzo failed to show intervening law, new evidence, or clear error; motion denied
Whether the Appendix created a contractual right to accounts	Izzo argued the Appendix was an additional agreement guaranteeing account access and commissions during employment	FGS argued the Appendix listed employee responsibilities and was subject to change; no binding promise created	Held for FGS — Appendix construed as responsibilities, not a separate enforceable benefit; contract at-will so employer could change duties
Timeliness of any wage or fraudulent-inducement claims	Izzo suggested unpaid commissions or fraudulent inducement claims	FGS noted statutes of limitations would bar such claims	Court observed any wage claim (two-year limit) or fraudulent-inducement claim (three-year limit) would be time-barred if asserted

Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255 (2d Cir. 1995) (standards for granting motions for reconsideration)
Virgin Atlantic Airways, Ltd. v. Nat’l Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245 (2d Cir. 1992) (grounds for reconsideration: intervening law, new evidence, clear error/manifest injustice)
Bessemer Trust Co. v. Branin, 498 F. Supp. 2d 632 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (employer may change terms when entire contract is terminable at will)
Antonino v. Johnson, 113 Conn. App. 72 (Conn. App. 2009) (clear contract language is a question of law, not fact)
D'Ulisse–Cupo v. Board of Directors of Notre Dame High School, 520 A.2d 217 (Conn. 1987) (general rule that indefinite-term employment is terminable at will)