{ "id": 11918158, "name": "FINN MORTENSEN v. MAGNETI MARELLI U.S.A., INC., f/d/b/a WEBER U.S.A., INC.", "name_abbreviation": "Mortensen v. Magneti Marelli U.S.A., Inc.", "decision_date": "1996-05-21", "docket_number": "No. COA95-350", "first_page": "486", "last_page": "489", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "122 N.C. App. 486" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "33 ALR4th 120", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 4th", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "32 ALR4th 1221", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 4th", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "93 ALR3d 659", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 3d", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "224 S.E.2d 698", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "699", "parenthetical": "Court upheld termination of prospective employee before she began the job" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "29 N.C. App. 504", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8556400 ], "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "505", "parenthetical": "Court upheld termination of prospective employee before she began the job" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/29/0504-01" ] }, { "cite": "285 S.E.2d 293", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "296", "parenthetical": "waiving right to pursue other employment does not constitute additional consideration" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "55 N.C. App. 359", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8527283 ], "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "362", "parenthetical": "waiving right to pursue other employment does not constitute additional consideration" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/55/0359-01" ] }, { "cite": "139 S.E.2d 249", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1964, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "251" }, { "page": "251" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "263 N.C. 216", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8568880 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1964, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "219" }, { "page": "219" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/263/0216-01" ] }, { "cite": "415 S.E.2d 200", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "331 N.C. 119", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2499683, 2502026, 2498378, 2501299, 2501692 ], "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/331/0119-05", "/nc/331/0119-03", "/nc/331/0119-01", "/nc/331/0119-04", "/nc/331/0119-02" ] }, { "cite": "412 S.E.2d 97", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "101" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "104 N.C. App. 652", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8523555 ], "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "658-59" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/104/0652-01" ] }, { "cite": "335 S.E.2d 13", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "314 N.C. 331", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4686660, 4695653, 4695471, 4689718, 4689592 ], "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/314/0331-03", "/nc/314/0331-01", "/nc/314/0331-05", "/nc/314/0331-02", "/nc/314/0331-04" ] }, { "cite": "328 S.E.2d 818", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "828" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "74 N.C. App. 331", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8524570 ], "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "345" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/74/0331-01" ] }, { "cite": "416 S.E.2d 166", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "168", "parenthetical": "quoting Coman, 325 N.C. at 175, 381 S.E.2d at 447" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "331 N.C. 348", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2498595 ], "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "351", "parenthetical": "quoting Coman, 325 N.C. at 175, 381 S.E.2d at 447" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/331/0348-01" ] }, { "cite": "381 S.E.2d 445", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "446" }, { "page": "447" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "325 N.C. 172", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2488329 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "175" }, { "page": "175" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/325/0172-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 461, "char_count": 7151, "ocr_confidence": 0.746, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.315773740066335e-07, "percentile": 0.7889544911691763 }, "sha256": "66a889341238891619a43208ac785a2762b5632310876ec573d0dd86f7262cfc", "simhash": "1:59a9540aa43e628f", "word_count": 1144 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:39:52.508825+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges JOHN and MARTIN, Mark D., concur." ], "parties": [ "FINN MORTENSEN v. MAGNETI MARELLI U.S.A., INC., f/d/b/a WEBER U.S.A., INC." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "GREENE, Judge.\nFinn Mortensen (plaintiff) appeals an order granting summary judgment for Magneti Marelli U.S.A., Inc., f/d/b/a Weber U.S.A., Inc. (defendant).\nIn 1988 defendant advertised for a Product Manager in Remanufacturing in its Sanford, North Carolina plant. After an interview at defendant\u2019s Sanford plant, plaintiff was offered the job by letter from defendant dated 17 January 1989. The letter stated in pertinent part: \u201cI am very pleased to offer you the position of Project Manager-Remanufacturing .... This offer is contingent upon obtaining your visa. Your annual salary will be $56,000.\u201d On or about 20 January 1989 plaintiff called defendant and accepted the offer and informed defendant that it would be \u201cvery easy\u201d for him to get his labor certification and other necessary documents that would allow him to work permanently in the United States. On or about 27 January plaintiff notified his other employer, CAPCO, that he would be leaving that employment on 1 March 1989.\nAlthough plaintiff was not able to secure his visa and other necessary documents by 1 March 1989, defendant employed plaintiff as a consultant pending plaintiff\u2019s receipt of the required documents that would allow him to permanently work and live in the United States. Prior to obtaining the visa, plaintiff and his family, in 1989, bought a house in Cary, North Carolina, and relocated to Cary. Although the permanent visa was obtained in October 1992, defendant informed the plaintiff that he would not be hired as a full-time employee until 1 January 1993. Defendant, however, later informed plaintiff that he would not be employed full time and his last day of part-time employment would be 31 May 1993.\nPlaintiff\u2019s complaint alleges that he has an \u201cenforceable contract for employment\u201d with the defendant and that defendant breached that contract. Defendant denied the allegations and moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the \u201crelationship between the parties was terminable at will.\u201d\nThe issue is whether the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant was terminable-at-will.\nThe general rule is that an \u201cemployee without a definite term of employment is an employee at will and may be discharged without reason.\u201d Coman v. Thomas Mfg. Co., 325 N.C. 172, 175, 381 S.E.2d 445, 446 (1989). This general rule, however, is subject to several statutory exceptions which \u201cproscribe the discharge of an at-will employee in retaliation for certain protected activities.\u201d Id. Furthermore, the employer does not have the right to terminate an at-will employee for an \u201cunlawful reason or purpose that contravenes public policy.\u201d Amos v. Oakdale Knitting Co., 331 N.C. 348, 351, 416 S.E.2d 166, 168 (1992) (quoting Coman, 325 N.C. at 175, 381 S.E.2d at 447).\nThe plaintiff, while conceding that he was not terminated in violation of any statute or for an unlawful reason, argues that his at-will status was \u201cconverted into an enforceable . . . obligation\u201d because he provided \u201cconsideration for the employment contract in addition to his mere rendering of the services contemplated by the employment agreement.\u201d We disagree.\nThe providing of additional consideration by the employee does not convert every employment-at-will agreement into an enforceable contract. If, however, the employment agreement expressly or impliedly provides that the employment will be permanent, for life or terminable only for cause and the employee gives an independent valuable consideration other than his services for the position, see Sides v. Duke University, 74 N.C. App. 331, 345, 328 S.E.2d 818, 828, disc. rev. denied, 314 N.C. 331, 335 S.E.2d 13 (1985); Salt v. Applied Analytical, Inc., 104 N.C. App. 652, 658-59, 412 S.E.2d 97, 101 (1991), cert. denied, 331 N.C. 119, 415 S.E.2d 200 (1992); Tuttle v. Lumber Co., 263 N.C. 216, 219, 139 S.E.2d 249, 251 (1964); John D. Calamari & Joseph M. Perillo, The Law of Contracts \u00a7 2-9 at 60-63 (3d ed. 1987); see also 30 C.J.S. Employer-Employee \u00a7 43, at 83 (1992), the employment can be terminated only for cause until the passage of a reasonable time. See 3A Arthur L. Corbin, Corbin on Contracts \u00a7 684 (1960 & Supp. 1994); Tattle, 263 N.C. at 219, 139 S.E.2d at 251; 30 C.J.S. Employer-Employee \u00a7 43, at 83 (1992). After the passage of a reasonable time the employment relationship can be terminated without cause.\nIn this case we need not decide whether the plaintiffs relinquishment of his legal rights as a resident of Canada, his resignation from his former employment, and his relocation from Canada to North Carolina qualifies as addition\u00e1l consideration. See Humphrey v. Hill, 55 N.C. App. 359, 362, 285 S.E.2d 293, 296 (1982) (waiving right to pursue other employment does not constitute additional consideration). The terms of the employment agreement do not expressly state, or imply, that the employment was to be permanent or that the plaintiff could be discharged only for cause. It thus follows that the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant was terminable at the will of either party for any reason and the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment for the defendant on the plaintiffs breach of contract claim.\nIn so holding, we also reject plaintiffs argument that even if the defendant had the right to terminate the relationship after the employment began, it had no right to terminate that relationship prior to the first day of employment. The time of termination is immaterial when the relationship between the parties is within' the at-will doctrine. Thus the relationship was properly terminated prior to the day the plaintiff was to begin employment. See Tatum v. Brown, 29 N.C. App. 504, 505, 224 S.E.2d 698, 699 (1976) (Court upheld termination of prospective employee before she began the job).\nAffirmed.\nJudges JOHN and MARTIN, Mark D., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "GREENE, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "John C. Hunter for plaintiff-appellant.", "Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge and Rice, by Charles A. Edwards and F. Bruce Williams, for defendant-appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "FINN MORTENSEN v. MAGNETI MARELLI U.S.A., INC., f/d/b/a WEBER U.S.A., INC.\nNo. COA95-350\n(Filed 21 May 1996)\nLabor and Employment \u00a7 63 (NCI4th)\u2014 employment at will\u2014 no breach of contract\nThe relationship between plaintiff and defendant was terminable at the will of either party for any reason, and the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment for defendant on plaintiff\u2019s breach of contract claim since the terms of the employment agreement did not expressly state or imply that the employment was to be permanent or that the plaintiff could be discharged only for cause.\nAm Jur 2d, Master and Servant \u00a7\u00a7 27-33.\nModern status as to duration of employment where contract specifies no term but fixes daily or longer compensation. 93 ALR3d 659.\nRecovery for discharge from employment in retaliation for filing workers\u2019 compensation claim. 32 ALR4th 1221.\nRight to discharge allegedly \u201cat-will\u201d employee as affected by employer\u2019s promulgation of employment policies as to discharge. 33 ALR4th 120.\nAppeal by plaintiff from order entered 2 November 1994 in Wake County Superior Court by Judge Robert H. Hobgood. Heard in the Court of Appeals 27 March 1996.\nJohn C. Hunter for plaintiff-appellant.\nWomble, Carlyle, Sandridge and Rice, by Charles A. Edwards and F. Bruce Williams, for defendant-appellee." }, "file_name": "0486-01", "first_page_order": 522, "last_page_order": 525 }