Geysen v. Securitas Security Services Usa, Inc.

142 A.3d 227 (2016)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D is a security services company that provides various protection services to industrial and commercial clients. P worked for D in an at-will position. P's compensation was a weekly base salary and commissions on contracts he procured. Once the contract was executed, and the sales eligibility requirements were satisfied, including invoicing to the client, P was entitled to commission payments without having to perform any other work. D terminated P's employment based on P's improper business activities. P filed a complaint alleging that D, in part, breached the employment contract by violating the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and wrongfully discharged him in violation of public policy. P alleged that D's reasons for his termination 'were false and a pretext for nonpayment of owed commissions.' D moved to strike count two, alleging breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and count three, alleging wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. The court granted the motion reasoning that P's wrongful discharge claim would be precluded due to existence of statutory remedy. The trial court determined that, because P's right to commissions was not contingent upon his providing any further services, he had fully earned his commissions when his employment was terminated. The court ruled the contract provision was unenforceable because it 'violated two public policies: the first, which strongly favors the payment of wages, and the second, which disfavors forfeitures.' Both parties appealed.