## Facts

- A newspaper published an advertisement stating a “permanent position” was available for an experienced male reporter.
- George A. Fisher, then employed by a baking firm earning $50 per week, responded and interviewed with the newspaper’s managing editor for about ten minutes.
- Fisher was hired as a reporter at $40 per week and left his bakery job to take the position.
- Fisher alleged an oral promise, made through an authorized agent, that he would be employed for life (or until physically disabled) and would receive annual raises of $5 per week.
- Fisher began work in January 1944 and was discharged around January 7, 1949.
- Fisher sued for breach of the alleged oral lifetime-employment contract; a jury returned a verdict for Fisher.
- The trial court denied the employer’s motions to set aside the verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV); the employer appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether “permanent employment,” without a definite duration, creates a lifetime employment contract or an indefinite hiring terminable at will.
2. Whether an employee’s act of leaving a prior job to accept new employment constitutes additional consideration sufficient to make a “permanent” employment promise enforceable as long-term employment.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the judgment for Fisher and remanded with direction to enter JNOV for the employer.
- The court held that “permanent” employment language, without a definite time term, is an indefinite hiring terminable at will by either party unless supported by additional consideration beyond the services to be performed.
- The court concluded Fisher’s resignation from his prior bakery job did not constitute the required additional consideration.
- The evidence was insufficient to establish a specific, enforceable promise of lifetime employment overriding the at-will rule.

## Legal Principles

- An agreement for “permanent employment,” absent a definite term, is presumed to be an indefinite general hiring terminable at the will of either party.
- To enforce “permanent” employment as a long-term or lifetime commitment, the employee must show consideration in addition to the rendering of services incident to the employment.
- Leaving prior employment to accept a new job, without more, is not additional consideration that converts an at-will relationship into a lifetime or fixed-term contract.
- General hiring language and brief pre-employment discussions, without a clear and definite promise and additional consideration, do not rebut the at-will presumption.

## Conclusion

The court held that the alleged “permanent” employment arrangement lacked a definite duration and was not supported by consideration beyond Fisher’s services; quitting his prior job was insufficient, so the employment was at-will and the employer was entitled to judgment notwithstanding the verdict.


Fisher v. Jackson, 118 A.2d 316 (Conn. 1955)