Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Robert L. Plouffe v. Contel Corporation, 931 F.2d 55, 4th Cir. (1991)
Robert L. Plouffe v. Contel Corporation, 931 F.2d 55, 4th Cir. (1991)
2d 55
Unpublished Disposition
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA89-1426-A)
Louis Raymond Paulick, McLean, Va., for appellant.
Gil A. Abramson, Semmes, Bowen & Semmes, Baltimore, Md. (Argued),
for appellee; John O. Easton, Jordan, Coyne, Savits & Lopata, Fairfax,
Va., on brief.
E.D.Va.
AFFIRMED.
Before SPROUSE, Circuit Judge, BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge, and
HIRAM H. WARD, Senior United States District Judge for the Middle
District of North Carolina, sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM:
This appeal is from the district court's grant of summary judgment to Contel
Plouffe filed breach of contract and retaliatory discharge claims against Contel
on September 29, 1989. The district court found the action barred by Virginia's
three-year statute of limitations governing oral contracts. Alternatively, it found
Plouffe's action failed under Virginia law because he was unable to prove that
his contract of employment was for a definite term or was terminable for cause
only.
II
4
808 (1941); Agostini v. Consolvo, 154 Va. 203, 210, 153 S.E. 676, 678 (1930);
Manss-Owens Co. v. Owens & Son, 129 Va. 183, 196, 105 S.E. 543, 547
(1921). True, there is a difference between these cases and the case sub judice
in that here the parties did not contemplate that the agreement would
subsequently be reduced to a formal document. Indeed, Plouffe's request for a
formal contract specifying a minimum duration of employment was denied by
Napier. This denial and lack of plans for a subsequent formal contract,
however, could add to the inference that the telegram and letter constitute the
written contract.
5
vesting schedule to take effect over the next four years, and stock rights
remaining exercisable for ten years cumulatively indicate that Plouffe had such
options as opposed to the possibility of having them at some point in the future.
7
Nor is the fact that Contel retained Plouffe on the payroll as a "consulting
employee" for several months after he was terminated of significant moment.
Unlike Hoffman Specialty Co. v. Pelouze, 158 Va. 586, 593, 164 S.E. 397, 399
(1932), where the Virginia court found the employer's request for the
employee's resignation indicative of something other than an at-will contract, in
the case sub judice, Contel terminated Plouffe from his position as a senior
level executive. His employment in a different position does not evidence the
hesitancy apparent in Hoffman and similar cases.
10