More On Illegal 'For Cause' Termination Language
Two years ago, I wrote an entry on the ONCA decision in Waksdale , finding that a contractual term for 'termination for cause' that offended employment standards legislation had the effect of invalidating the rest of the termination language, such that an employer could not rely upon the 'not-for-cause' provisions of the agreement. There's a new one, Rahman v. Cannon Design Architecture , dealing with essentially the same question, and coming down the same way. The main difference between the two cases is that, in Waksdale , the parties agreed for the purposes of the appeal that the 'for cause' language was illegal, and the 'not-for-cause' language was not otherwise problematic; in Rahman , the employer argued (and the motions judge accepted) that the 'for cause' language should be interpreted as ESA -compliant because that's how both parties (including a relatively sophisticated plaintiff) would have understood it. So in some ways, thi...