Graduate cannot recover the
full $110,000 because she accepted employment as a law clerk for $40,000. The accepted rule states that a wrongfully
dismissed employee will recover the agreed upon salary minus what the employee
has earned or reasonably could have earned from comparable employment. Under this rule, at most, she can recover the
difference between the two salaries, $70,000.
In order to recover this
amount, Graduate must show factually that the employment she was offered by Upp & Kumming was not
substantially similar to the employment she was promised by Dewey, Cheatham
& Howe. If the court rules that the
two positions were substantially similar, Graduate can only recover $20,000,
which is the difference in salaries between the two positions over the duration
of the breached contract.
There are several facts in
this case that help show that the job offered at
1.
2.
It
takes longer to be considered for partnership at
3.
4.
The
pay range
On the other hand, DCH could
present facts in support of the conclusion that employment at
1.
A
greater percentage of the lawyers at
2.
Because
3.
DCH
may present evidence that though its partners’ pay is characterized by a wider
range, the average partner salary at
Warning! Probably going overboard at this point!
Both sides could make broader
arguments about the damages or mitigation that are appropriate given Graduate’s
long term employment outlook.
Graduate could argue that she
was deprived not only of one year’s salary at DCH, but the opportunity to
pursue greater financial gains from continued employment there. She was promised the opportunity to enter
into what amounts to a seven year competition to win employment as a partner
with a very high salary.
DCH could argue that the expected
opportunities, monetary and otherwise, afforded to Graduate in the long run
from accepting the law clerk position would exceed the expected opportunities had
the contract been performed, therefore, no damages should be awarded.