No. 20-621

Hua Cai v. Huntsman Corporation

Lower Court: Tenth Circuit
Docketed: 2020-11-09
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Relisted (2)
Tags: code-of-conduct contract-elements contract-formation contractual-obligations employee-handbook employment-contract employment-contract-terms judicial-interpretation non-retaliation-policy policy-documents
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw SocialSecurity Immigration
Latest Conference: 2021-03-19 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Do policy documents constitute legally enforceable contracts?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED : This case presents two independent, substantial legal issues that have divided the courts of appeals: . 1: Usually employer and employee will sign a set of policy documents on top of employment contract, such as Employee Handbook, Code of Conduct, Code of Ethics, etc. These documents sets forth employee : rights and obligations, provides complaint protocol, ; and outlines consequences for failure to comply with it, specifically discipline and _ termination. Non-retaliation policy is an important component. The question is do these policy documents constitute legally enforceable contracts? Does the’ policy statements, especially the non-retaliation statement creates enforceable contractual obligations if there is no disclaimer disavowing contract right? 2: Usually to determine if a document ; constitutes legally binding contract or not, the court will closely examine if the document contains the essential elements of a contract: offer, acceptance, . consideration. But in this case the Federal Judge invented new approach, he ruled that the policy statement do not constitute a contract because he could not find the contents normally contained in an employment contract (e.g. salary, duration...). The question is can judge decide the contract does not established because the particular content that judge ‘ deems necessary does not exist? ii .

Docket Entries

2021-03-22
Rehearing DENIED.
2021-02-24
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/19/2021.
2021-02-11
2021-01-25
Petition DENIED.
2021-01-11
Reply of petitioner Hua Cai filed.
2021-01-06
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/22/2021.
2020-12-17
Brief of respondent Huntsman Corporation in opposition filed.
2020-11-16
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including December 17, 2020.
2020-11-10
Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 9, 2020 to December 17, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
2020-10-27
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 9, 2020)

Attorneys

Hua Cai
Hua Cai — Petitioner
Hua Cai — Petitioner
Huntsman Corporation
Justin Tyler TothRay Quinney & Nebeker P . C ., Respondent
Justin Tyler TothRay Quinney & Nebeker P . C ., Respondent
Beth J. RanschauRay Quinney & Nebeker, Respondent
Beth J. RanschauRay Quinney & Nebeker, Respondent