## Facts

- A violinist was employed by a symphony organization under a written “Master Agreement” governing attendance and discharge.
- The agreement required musicians to attend rehearsals and concerts unless excused or prevented by illness or conditions beyond their control.
- The agreement allowed end-of-season termination by notice “for any reason or for no reason,” and separately allowed dismissal “for cause,” including specified misconduct and “violation of any provision” for which no other penalty was provided.
- On March 30, 1967, the symphony gave the musician notice of an end-of-season discharge effective at the close of the 1967–1968 season; the musician conceded this notice complied with the contract and sought no damages for it.
- On April 15, 1967, the symphony discharged the musician immediately by telegram, citing a violation of the contract’s “for cause” dismissal clause based on his failure to appear for two out-of-town tour concerts on April 13 and 14, 1967.
- The musician sued for breach of contract, claiming lost wages from the date of immediate discharge until the end-of-season discharge date.
- At trial, the musician testified that during the claimed loss period he played with two out-of-town orchestras and earned \$3,430.
- A jury awarded the musician \$6,335, and the trial court entered judgment without offsetting the \$3,430.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence permitted a finding that the symphony breached the Master Agreement by invoking the “for cause” clause to discharge the musician immediately for missed concerts.
2. Whether, assuming wrongful discharge, damages had to be reduced by the musician’s proven interim earnings from other orchestral work during the contract period.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals left the liability judgment intact, concluding the jury could find the immediate discharge was not justified under the contract.
- The court reversed on damages because the award failed to deduct proven earnings obtained during the period for which back pay was sought.
- The case was remanded for correction of damages consistent with the mitigation offset.

## Legal Principles

- A “for cause” discharge provision in a written employment agreement must be applied according to the agreement’s text and structure; whether an asserted contract violation constitutes cause for immediate dismissal may present a fact question.
- In a wrongful-discharge action for fixed-term employment, recoverable back pay equals the contract compensation that would have been earned minus actual earnings from substitute employment (and other amounts shown to mitigate loss) during the same period.
- A damages award is erroneous as a matter of law when it ignores undisputed mitigation evidence and places the employee in a better position than contract performance would have produced.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the jury’s determination that the immediate dismissal was a breach of the Master Agreement, but it reversed the damages award because the musician’s proven interim earnings had to be treated as mitigation and deducted from any back-pay recovery.


Indiana State Symphony Soc'y, Inc. v. Ziedonis, 171 Ind. App. 292 (1976)