## Facts

- Maurice H. Roth operated a seasonal beauty salon in Silver Spring, Maryland.
- On April 15, 1955, Roth and Otto Siegfried Speck executed a written one-year employment contract for Speck to work as a hairdresser.
- The contract provided compensation of $75 per week or 50% commission on gross receipts from Speck’s work, whichever was greater.
- Speck worked for about six and a half months and left before the contract term ended.
- Roth testified Speck was highly skilled, quickly developed a steady clientele, and required no special training.
- Roth attempted to replace Speck: the first replacement cost Roth $350 and was discharged; a second replacement was still not earning his salary at the time of trial.
- Evidence showed Speck began work at another salon on November 1, 1955, earning $100 per week; the other salon’s owner described Speck as a very good operator.
- Speck testified he left because working conditions were unbearable and he had complained to Roth; he stated money was not the main reason for leaving.
- The trial court found Speck breached the contract but awarded Roth only $1 in nominal damages.

## Issues

1. Whether, after proof that an employee breached a fixed-term employment contract, the employer may recover more than nominal damages based on reasonably definite evidence of the employee’s market value, even if proof of the employer’s lost profits is uncertain.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the nominal-damages award and remanded for reassessment of damages.
- The court held that the value of the employee’s services may be an appropriate measure of damages if proven with reasonable certainty.
- The court concluded the record contained tangible evidence of Speck’s market value, including testimony about Speck’s skill and his subsequent $100-per-week salary.
- The court rejected Speck’s argument that potential commissions under the contract required reducing the damage measure, finding no evidentiary basis to assume commissions would have been earned during the remaining term.

## Legal Principles

- A proven breach of contract entitles the non-breaching party to damages; nominal damages are limited to cases with no proof or only vague proof of actual loss.
- When lost-profit proof is uncertain, an employer may recover expectation damages measured by the market value of the employee’s services, if that value is shown with reasonable certainty.
- An employee’s higher subsequent wage may be used as evidence of the market value of the employee’s services for purposes of calculating the employer’s damages.
- Speculative offsets or reductions (such as unproven future commissions) will not be applied absent evidence supporting their occurrence.

## Conclusion

The court held that an employer is not limited to nominal damages for an employee’s premature departure from a fixed-term contract when the record provides reasonably definite proof of the employee’s market value, and it remanded for calculation of expectation damages using that measure.


Roth v. Speck, 126 A.2d 153 (D.C. 1956)