Skip to main content

Batchelder v. Standard Plunger Elevator Co.

Unknown CourtJanuary 12, 1910Cited 11 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Brown, Elkin, Fell, Mestrezat, Moschzisker, Potter, Stewart
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

Wrongful Termination

Outcome

Court affirmed the school board's dismissal of teacher Raymond Yeich, finding that the cumulative charges of failing to fill out schedule cards, neglecting corridor duties, giving unapproved tests, and leaving school early constituted willful and persistent negligence under the Act of 1937.

Excerpt

Jan. T., 1909, by defendant, from order of C. P. No. 2, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1906, No. 640, dismissing exceptions to report of referee in case of Albert E. Batchelder v. Standard Plunger Elevator Company. Assumpsit to recover damages for an alleged wrongful discharge of plaintiff by defendant, his employer. Exceptions to report of referee. The referee, Chester N. Farr, Esq., found as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT. 1. That the plaintiff possessed the necessary mechanical skill and executive ability to carry out the work of employment in the office of outside foreman for which he had contracted to serve the defendant. 2. That there is no evidence that his capacity for doing work deteriorated as time went on in the service of the defendant company. 3. During the entire time that the plaintiff worked for the defendant he showed executive skill and efficiency of an order reasonably sufficient to comply with the conditions of the contract. 4. There were no inefficient acts on the part of the plaintiff that resulted in any detriment or loss to the defendant company. 5. The plaintiff employed a man named Tupper as a driller on the work on the Wanamaker building during the fall of 1904. At that time the defendant company had discharged Tupper, who had previously been working in the Pittsburg district. The plaintiff was aware of this discharge, and that the company had notified him not to re-employ Tupper; and in making this appointment the plaintiff violated the instructions given him by the company. 6. The plaintiff, while on the Wanamaker building was directed by the assistant president of the company to keep a diary of the progress of' his work. This he did not do. 7. The plaintiff was asked at the commencement of the work on the Wanamaker building to prepare a list of the tools which it would be necessary for him to have for the purpose of the elevator construction. This order he disobeyed, and h

What This Ruling Means

This 1909 case involved Albert Batchelder, who sued Standard Plunger Elevator Company after being fired from his job. Batchelder claimed his termination was wrongful and violated his employment contract. A court referee (similar to a judge) reviewed the case and reached a mixed decision. The referee found that Batchelder was indeed wrongfully discharged, noting that he had demonstrated competence and efficiency in his work. However, the referee also determined that Batchelder had violated company rules in two important ways: he had rehired a worker who had previously been fired by the company, and he failed to keep proper documentation as required by his employer. This case matters for workers because it shows that even competent employees can face justified discipline for violating company policies, regardless of their job performance. It demonstrates that employers typically have the right to set workplace rules and expect employees to follow them. The mixed outcome suggests that while workers may have valid claims against unfair treatment, their own conduct will also be scrutinized. Workers should understand that good job performance alone may not protect them if they fail to follow established company procedures and policies.

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

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.