Skip to main content

Prospect CharterCARE, LLC v. Michael E. Conklin, Jr.

RIJune 13, 2018No. 17-188Cited 5 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Suttell, Goldberg, Flaherty, Robinson
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Breach of Contract

Outcome

The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's order confirming an arbitration award in favor of Michael E. Conklin, Jr., awarding him extended severance payments under a 'de facto termination' provision after his operational duties were materially reduced following a change in control.

Excerpt

The plaintiff, Prospect CharterCARE, LLC (PCC), appealed from an order of the Superior Court denying its motion to vacate an arbitration award and confirming the award in favor of the defendant, Michael E. Conklin, Jr. On appeal, PCC contended that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by: (1) relying on a "concededly erroneous" factual assumption and thereby manifestly disregarding the applicable law (2) manifestly disregarding the clear and unambiguous contractual language that should have precluded any award in favor of the defendant and (3) ordering PCC to pay the defendant extended severance benefits when the defendant failed to prove that PCC had assumed liability for the employment contracts entered into between the defendant and his previous employer—PCC's predecessor entity. The Supreme Court held that the arbitrator neither manifestly disregarded the law nor manifestly disregarded a contractual provision, because the arbitrator's award drew its essence from the parties' agreement and was sufficiently grounded in the contract to be within the scope of his authority as an arbitrator. Additionally, the Supreme Court concluded that PCC had waived its argument with respect to assumption of liability under the employment contract. For these reasons, the Supreme Court affirmed the order and the judgment of the Superior Court.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** Michael Conklin worked for Prospect CharterCARE under a contract that included severance benefits if he was terminated or if his job duties were significantly reduced after a company ownership change. When new owners took control, they drastically cut Conklin's responsibilities, essentially leaving him with little meaningful work. Conklin claimed this qualified as a "de facto termination" under his contract, entitling him to extended severance pay. The company disagreed and the dispute went to arbitration. **What the Court Decided** An arbitrator ruled in Conklin's favor, finding that the severe reduction in his duties constituted a de facto termination and awarded him extended severance payments. The company tried to overturn this decision in court, arguing the arbitrator made errors. However, both the lower court and Rhode Island Supreme Court upheld the arbitration award, confirming Conklin's right to the severance benefits. **Why This Matters for Workers** This case shows that employment contracts with "de facto termination" or similar provisions can protect workers when employers drastically reduce their responsibilities instead of formally firing them. Workers with such contract language may be entitled to severance benefits even if they're not technically laid off.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

Del Sesto v. Prospect CharterCARE, LLC
D.R.I.Oct 2019
Plaintiff Win
James Chappel v. Laboratory Corporation of America, AKA National Health Lab
9th CircuitNov 2000
Mixed Result
Umland v. PLANCO Financial Services, Inc.
3rd CircuitSep 2008
Defendant Win
Jane Doe v. Brown University
RIJun 2021

The plaintiff, Jane Doe, appealed from a Superior Court judgment dismissing her complaint against the defendants, Brown University and two of its employees. In Superior Court, the plaintiff asserted claims under both the Rhode Island Civil Rights Act (RICRA) and article 1, section 2 of the Rhode Island Constitution. On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the hearing justice erred in determining that her claims under RICRA were precluded by the prior dismissal of the plaintiff's federal Title IX claim. The plaintiff also argued that the hearing justice erred in holding that section 2 of article 1 of the Rhode Island Constitution does not grant the plaintiff a private right of action. The Supreme Court first held that the plaintiff's claims under RICRA were predicated upon the defendants' alleged violations of Title IX, which had already been litigated in federal court. Further, the Supreme Court stated that the resolution of that issue in federal court was essential to the judgment on the merits and, therefore, issue preclusion barred the plaintiff's claim in Superior Court. The Supreme Court also held that the plaintiff's claim that the defendants interfered with her contract with an educational institution was not actionable. Next, the Supreme Court examined the antidiscrimination clause contained in section 2 of article 1 of the Rhode Island Constitution and held that it was not self executing. Further, the Supreme Court held that principles of judicial restraint prevented the Court from creating a private right of action under these circumstances. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court.

Defendant Win

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.