140 So. 3d 807
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- Willwoods, a private charitable foundation, is subject to Louisiana employment laws.
- A new executive director position was created in January 2009 as part of a succession plan for Father Chambers.
- Read, age 65, pursued the role after learning of the search; interviewers indicated a five- to six-year commitment was desired.
- Read testified he would accept a five-year commitment; interviewers disputed a definite term was discussed or offered.
- Read began work on June 1, 2009; he was terminated May 2010, and later claimed an oral fixed-term contract existed for five years.
- Trial and appellate proceedings concluded with a jury finding a five-year oral contract and damages of $510,328.75.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there a meeting of the minds on contract duration? | Read contends the five-year term was agreed. | Willwoods asserts no definite term was discussed or agreed. | Yes; jury found a five-year fixed term. |
| What corroborating evidence supports an oral five-year contract? | Evidence beyond Read’s testimony corroborated a multi-year commitment. | Corroboration insufficient; only Read’s testimony without a clear term is weak. | Corroborating circumstances found; sufficient for jury to credit a five-year term. |
| Does the lack of a written contract defeat the claim of a fixed-term contract? | Oral agreement can be enforceable if proper corroboration exists. | Absence of a written contract suggests employment was at-will. | Not dispositive; oral contract with corroboration can be valid. |
| Should a single interview question establish a fixed-term contract by itself? | That question, with other evidence, supports a meeting of the minds. | A single question cannot establish a term; must be corroborated. | The question, with other corroborating facts, supported a five-year term. |
Key Cases Cited
- Suire v. Lafayette City-Parish Consol. Gov't, 907 So.2d 37 (La. 2005) (corroborating circumstances need not prove every detail; general corroboration suffices)
- Brodhead v. Bd. of Trustees for State Colleges & Universities, 588 So.2d 748 (La.App. 1 Cir.1991) (meeting of the minds on contract duration required; five-year term not shown)
- Meredith v. Louisiana Fed'n of Teachers, 209 F.3d 398 (5th Cir.2000) (corroborating evidence may include leaving a secure position for new employment)
- Higgins v. Smith International, 716 F.2d 278 (5th Cir.1983) (secure employment used to infer a meeting of the minds; caution against over-reliance on a single fact)
- Lanier v. Alenco, 459 F.2d 689 (5th Cir.1972) (left long-term employment for new opportunity; indicates need for substantial assurances)