Question

Pablo orally agrees to work for two years at MexiCal, a reputable nonprofit organization that helps immigrants settle in the US. Pablo moves his family from Detroit to San Diego and begins work. Three months later, Pablo is fired for no stated cause. Pablo sues for reinstatement and back pay. MexiCal alleges that they had no obligation to retain Pablo because there was no written contract. Should Pablo be reinstated?

Answer 1

Considering Pablo did not have a written contract, the decision on reinstatement might depend on the legal recognition of oral contracts and the concept of promissory estoppel, as well as the implied contract of employment that began when he started working. The historical context of immigrant workers' treatment may also play a role in the legal proceedings.

Step-by-step explanation:

In the case of Pablo and MexiCal, there are a few notable legal principles that might influence whether Pablo should be reinstated and receive back pay. While Pablo only verbally agreed to work for two years and did not have a written contract, the law sometimes recognizes oral contracts as binding. However, certain types of contracts, like those for employment lasting more than one year, may require a written agreement under the Statute of Frauds, which is a doctrine in contract law.

Nevertheless, there are exceptions to this requirement. If Pablo moved his family in reliance on the job offer, which is a significant life change, he may be able to claim promissory estoppel. This legal concept can enforce oral agreements when one party has relied on the promise to their detriment.

Moreover, if Pablo had already started working, there's an implied contract of employment which MexiCal might be obligated to honor. The precedent set by the history of how immigrants have been treated, such as the abuses experienced by Braceros and Mexican workers during the 'Operation Wetback,' could also contribute to public perception and the legal environment surrounding Pablo's case. Whether the law would view these actions, given past injustices, as warranting a corrective response remains a question for the courts.

Answer 2

Pablo should not be reinstated. Without a written contract specifying a definite employment term, Pablo's employment with MexiCal is likely at-will, allowing either party to terminate the relationship without cause. MexiCal's argument that they had no obligation to retain Pablo due to the absence of a written contract is legally sound in most at-will employment jurisdictions.

Step-by-step explanation:

In employment law, the absence of a written contract often implies an at-will employment relationship. At-will employment means that either the employer or the employee can terminate the employment relationship at any time, with or without cause. Since Pablo's agreement with MexiCal was oral and did not specify a definite term, it is presumed to be at-will. As such, MexiCal has the legal right to terminate Pablo's employment without providing a reason, as long as the termination does not violate any applicable employment laws.

While the situation may seem unfair, employment laws generally favor employers in the absence of a written contract specifying a different arrangement. To alter this outcome, employees should seek written employment contracts that outline the terms and conditions of their employment, including the duration of the employment relationship. In Pablo's case, the lack of a written contract diminishes his legal grounds for reinstatement and back pay.

In summary, the legal principle of at-will employment, coupled with the absence of a written contract, supports MexiCal's right to terminate Pablo without cause. Consequently, Pablo should not be reinstated, as MexiCal's actions align with the prevailing legal framework for at-will employment.