LABOR RELATIONS

In American Samoa, if the parties to an employment contract have neither fixed a definite term of employment nor created any contractual obstacle to the employer’s discretionary right to discharge the employee, then the contract is for employment at will, and the employer may discharge the employee without incurring liability. The parties’ understanding with respect to employment duration is the key to determining whether the contract contains a just cause termination provision. Faumuina v. A.S.G. Emp. Ret. Fund, 1 A.S.R.3d 45 (1997).

The court will consider the intent of the parties, business custom and usage, the nature of the employment, the situation of the parties, and the circumstances of the case to determine the understanding of the parties with respect to employment duration. Faumuina v. A.S.G. Emp. Ret. Fund, 1 A.S.R.3d 45 (1997).

Courts must examine the nature of the interest at stake to determine whether the party has merely a unilateral expectation of the interest or has a constitutionally protected claim of entitlement to the interest in deciding a party’s due process rights. Faumuina v. A.S.G. Emp. Ret. Fund, 1 A.S.R.3d 45 (1997).

Enforceable claims to an entitlement derive from a statute, legal rule, or through contractual arrangement. Faumuina v. A.S.G. Emp. Ret. Fund, 1 A.S.R.3d 45 (1997).

Where a discharged employee presents sufficient facts which, if proven at trial, could persuade a reasonable factfinder to find that he had a just cause termination clause in his employment contract, that his employer wrongfully terminated his employment without just cause, and that the employment was terminated in violation of the requirements of procedural and substantive due process the employer’s motion for summary judgment will be denied by the court. Faumuina v. A.S.G. Emp. Ret. Fund, 1 A.S.R.3d 45 (1997).

Dismissal of government employment action without prejudice proper where dispute had not undergone three-part administrative procedure. Tauia v. A.S.G., 1 A.S.R.3d 64 (1997).

Under three-part administrative procedure, government employee submits written grievance to supervisor, Director of Manpower Resources conducts an informal hearing and issues a “final decision,” after which employee may appeal to Personnel Advisory Board. Tauia v. A.S.G., 1 A.S.R.3d 64 (1997).

Employment is presumed to be at-will. Faumuina v. A.S.G. Employees Retirement Fund, 1 A.S.R.3d 112 (1997).

The presumption that employment is at-will can be rebutted by evidence of the intent of the parties, business custom and usage, the nature of the employment, the situation of the parties, and the circumstances of the case. From such evidence, a court may infer that a particular employment contract contained a just cause clause. Faumuina v. A.S.G. Employees Retirement Fund, 1 A.S.R.3d 112 (1997).

Where defendant’s oral representations, the parties’ respective intentions, the business custom and usage, the nature of the employment, the situation of the parties, and the circumstances of the case all supported conclusion that plaintiff’s employment would be terminated only for just cause, “at-will presumption” effectively rebutted. Faumuina v. A.S.G. Employees Retirement Fund, 1 A.S.R.3d 112 (1997).

A servant is only bound to obey reasonable orders of the employer. Faumuina v. A.S.G. Employees Retirement Fund, 1 A.S.R.3d 112 (1997).

Where employee approached Board of Trustee member in violation of employer’s express order, but evidence indicated such discussion was not an attempt to subvert supervisor’s authority or to undermine morale at employer’s business, but was merely a desperate request for advice from a friend during a period of tremendous stress, such insubordination was not “just cause” for employee’s termination. Faumuina v. A.S.G. Employees Retirement Fund, 1 A.S.R.3d 112 (1997).

To assert a cause of action for deprivation of due process, a party must demonstrate that it has a constitutionally protected claim of entitlement to a “liberty” or “property” interest. Faumuina v. A.S.G. Employees Retirement Fund, 1 A.S.R.3d 112 (1997).

Procedural due process rights can attach to a contractual entitlement where a person’s good name, reputation, honor, or integrity is at stake. Faumuina v. A.S.G. Employees Retirement Fund, 1 A.S.R.3d 112 (1997).

Where employee’s contract provided for continued employment absent sufficient cause, employee was entitled to due process before he could be terminated. Faumuina v. A.S.G. Employees Retirement Fund, 1 A.S.R.3d 112 (1997).

The practical requirements of procedural due process vary with the circumstances and particular demands of the case and usually require something less than a full evidentiary hearing. Faumuina v. A.S.G. Employees Retirement Fund, 1 A.S.R.3d 112 (1997).

As long as the claimant has notice and an opportunity to be heard, the claimant has been afforded adequate procedural due process. Faumuina v. A.S.G. Employees Retirement Fund, 1 A.S.R.3d 112 (1997).

Where employee was not given advance notice of the charges against him such that he could gather evidence and solicit witness testimony to present defense, such procedure did not substantially comport with the requirements of procedural due process. Faumuina v. A.S.G. Employees Retirement Fund, 1 A.S.R.3d 112 (1997).

Where an employer wrongfully terminates an employee, but in the process of litigation brought by the employee learns about wrongdoing that would lead to a legitimate discharge of the employee, the employer is not required to ignore such information, but courts must review the factual permutations and the equitable considerations on a case-by-case basis in order to determine what relief is appropriate. Faumuina v. A.S.G. Employees Retirement Fund, 1 A.S.R.3d 112 (1997).

Where employer was unaware of an illegal monetary gift received by wrongfully terminated employee, it was proper to allow employer to terminate employee effective upon date that impropriety discovered. Faumuina v. A.S.G. Employees Retirement Fund, 1 A.S.R.3d 112 (1997).

Where employee wrongfully terminated but, in the process of litigation, employer later discovers cause for termination, plaintiff’s damages limited to back pay from date of wrongful termination to date of employer’s discovery. Faumuina v. A.S.G. Employees Retirement Fund, 1 A.S.R.3d 112 (1997).