Final Case Brief
FACTS: Claude D’Unger worked for the Ed Rachal Foundation. This foundation owned a ranch that shared a border with the Rio Grande. Frequently, migrants would cross through the ranch. D’Unger suspected that another ranch employee was harassing migrants. Despite being told by his CEO to drop the issue, D’Unger contacted the authorities. It came out that there was no crimes committed, and D’Unger was fired as a result of his actions. Claude D’Unger claimed that the Foundation had breached its contract and that he had been wrongfully terminated and sued on these grounds. He also sued his CEO, Paul Altheide, claiming he had commited tortious interference. The county judge who reviewed his case ruled in favor of D’Unger, but a court of appeals reversed the breach of contract and …show more content…
Was there a valid case of wrongful termination against D’Unger?

DECISION: The Supreme Court decided that the Ed Rachal Foundation did not breach their contract by firing D’Unger. The Court also decided that there had been no wrongful termination against D’Unger.

LAWS: There are two issues that the law applies to in this case. First, in Midland Judicial District Community Supervision v. Jones, the Court rejected the English Rule that states that giving an individual a yearly salary amount signifies a promise of employment for the stated period, instead clarifying that employment is “presumed to be at will.” The Court also decided that there had been no wrongful termination in this case, since D’Unger’s claim came from the Sabine Pilot Service, Inc. v. Hauck case, which asserted that employers cannot fire employees for the reason of refusing to commit a crime and this law did not apply to D’Unger’s case.

REASON: On the first issue, the Supreme Court decided that a company stating a given rate per year as a salary for an employee is not sufficient to represent a binding contract for that