Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractbreach of contractstatuteappealtrialwillwrongful terminationgood faith
contractplaintiffdefendantstatuteappealtrialwillcommon law

Related Cases

Selcke v. New England Ins. Co., 995 F.2d 688
View Case »
ACG, Inc. v. Southeast Elevator, Inc., 912 S.W.2d 163
View Case »
BAII Banking Corp. v. UPG, Inc., 985 F.2d 685, 20 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 155, 37 A.L.R.5th 807
View Case »
Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd., 7 Cal.4th 503, 869 P.2d 454, 28 Cal.Rptr.2d 475, 62 USLW 2636
View Case »
Pine River State Bank v. Mettille, 333 N.W.2d 622, 115 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 4493
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Geysen v. Securitas Sec. Services USA, Inc., 322 Conn. 385, 142 A.3d 227, 26 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1374

Facts

Kevin Geysen was employed by Securitas Security Services as a business development manager under an at-will employment contract that included a commission structure. His employment was terminated on May 22, 2008, following an investigation into alleged improper business activities. Geysen filed a complaint in August 2009, claiming he was owed unpaid commissions and alleging wrongful termination and breach of contract. The trial court ruled in his favor on the wage statute claim but struck the other claims, leading to appeals from both parties.

The defendant is a security services company that provides various protection services to industrial and commercial clients. In August, 2005, the defendant offered the plaintiff an at-will position as a manager. The defendant's offer letter, which the plaintiff signed in September, 2005, provided that the plaintiff's compensation was a weekly base salary and commissions on contracts he procured.

Issue

Whether the at-will employment agreement's commission provision violated public policy and wage statutes, and whether Geysen's claims for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and wrongful termination were legally sufficient.

This consolidated appeal presents the question of whether an at-will employment agreement, providing that an employee's commissions will not be paid unless the employer has invoiced commissionable amounts to the client prior to the employee's termination, is contrary to public policy and a violation of General Statutes (Supp.2016) § 31–72.

Rule

Contracts that violate public policy are unenforceable, but parties are free to contract for terms they agree upon, provided those terms do not negate laws enacted for the common good.

Although it is well established that parties are free to contract for whatever terms on which they may agree … it is equally well established that contracts that violate public policy are unenforceable.

Analysis

The court analyzed whether the commission provision in Geysen's employment contract violated public policy or wage statutes. It concluded that the provision, which required commissions to be invoiced before termination, did not negate the wage statutes and was enforceable. The court also found that Geysen's claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith was legally sufficient, as it focused on the reasonable expectations of the parties rather than public policy violations.

On the basis of our review of Connecticut law and the public policy of freedom of contract reflected in our common law, we do not believe that this commission provision on its face 'negate[s] laws enacted for the common good' or is 'designed to evade statutory requirements….'

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of Geysen on his wage statute claim, reversed the striking of his claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith, and upheld the striking of the wrongful termination claim.

Accordingly, we reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.

Who won?

Kevin Geysen prevailed in part, as the court recognized his claim for unpaid commissions under the wage statute and allowed his claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith to proceed.

We agree with the defendant that the trial court improperly determined that the commission provision violated public policy and constituted a violation of § 31–72.

You must be