Cited by

An employee who is hired for an indefinite term is generally considered to be “at- will.”

It excludes judges from “any provision of this chapter or any other law to the contrary” because “judges may appoint and remove court repor ters at their pleasure.” Minn. Stat. 6 When an employee is at will, “the employer can summarily dismiss the employee for any reason or no reason.” Pine River State Bank v. Mettille

As we explained in Pine River State Bank v. Mettille , “[g]enerally speaking, a promise of 8 employment on particular terms of unspecified duration, if in the form of an offer, an d if accepted by the employee, may create a binding unilateral contract.”

Commercial Assocs., Inc. v. Work Connection, Inc. , (-27 (Minn. 1983)).

Bu t an offer or promise of employment on particular terms “must be definite in form and must be communicated to the offeree.” Pine River State Bank v. Mettille

Pine River State Bank v. Mettille , .

D E C I S I O N Waterford first argues that the district court erred in determining that the agreement is indefinite, with no set duration, (“When a contract is for an indefinite duration, the duration is not set”), rather than perpetual , continuing forever, see Glacial Plains Coop.

Pine River State Bank v. Mettille , d 622, 628 (Minn. 1983).

Pine River State Bank v. Mettille

Pine River State Bank v. Mettille , –27 (Minn. 1983).

sota Supreme Court explained in Pine River State Bank v. Mettille that the rule of at-will employment is a rule of construction and that “cases which reason that the at-will rule takes precedence over even explicit job termination restraints, simply because the contract is of indefinite duration, misapply the at-will rule of construction as a rule of substantive limitation on contract formation.”

When an employer offers continued employm ent based on new terms and the “ employee retains employment with knowledge of new or changed conditions, the new or changed conditions may become a contractual obligation.” -27 (Minn. 1983) .

See Hilligoss v. Cargill, Inc., -48 (Minn. 2002) (affirming use of CIVJIG 55.05, which defined cause and allowed jury to determine if employee was terminated for cause where employment contract did not define cause); -31 (Minn. 1983) (affirming jury finding of lack of good cause where employee handbook changed at-will employment to one requiring good cause for dismissal and factual dispute existed on good-cause issue); Kvidera, d at 420 (for-cause determination set for trial after district court

Count 7: “[V]iolation of code of conduct/corporate compliance” “[P]ersonnel handbook provisions, if they meet the requirements for formation of a unilateral contract, may become enforceable as part of the original employment contract.”

“The formation of a contract requires communication of a specific and definite offer, acceptance, and consideration.” Commercial Assocs., Inc. v. Work Connection, Inc., (–27 (Minn. 1983)).

A. In Minnesota, the employer-employee relationship is generally at-will, which means that an employer may discharge an employee for “any reason or no reason” and that an employee is “under no obligation to remain on the job.”

employee-employer relationship may be terminated at-will “for any reason or for no reason at all,” Nelson v. Productive Alts., Inc., and “[discharge from employment is actionable, if at all, because it constitutes a breach of the employment contract,” (-28 (Minn.1983)).

(“[An] employee’s retention of employment constitutes acceptance of the offer of a unilateral contract; by continuing to stay on the job, although free to leave, the employee supplies the necessary consideration for the offer.”); Guercio, d at 384 (holding that contract results when employee

(concluding that the respondent needed to file a notice of review if he wanted to appeal the trial judge’s denial of his motion for a new trial to show additional damages for mental anguish); Ford v. Chi., Milwaukee, St.

“The formation of a contract requires communication of a specific and definite offer, acceptance, and consideration.” Commercial Assocs., Inc., d at 782 (-27 (Minn.1983)).