More proof that workplace e-mail can be dangerous: A court has ruled that an informal exchange between two people was enough to modify a critical contract.

Arthur Stevens, the former CEO of a public relations firm, sold his business to a French global communications company and remained as chairman and CEO of the new company. Eventually, his performance began to suffer, and Stevens went to a meeting with company representatives where he was presented with two options. He could either:

1. Resign from his position with the firm, or
2. Continue on, but with new responsibilities.

After the meeting, a company representative e-mailed Stevens with the info they’d discussed in the meeting, but the new responsibilities were fleshed out in more details. Stevens replied to the e-mail saying he was excited about new job responsibilities, and signed his name at the bottom of the message.

The company representative wrote back saying he, too, was pleased with the decision, and also signed his name.

When Stevens later decided he didn’t actually like the new responsibilities set forth, the company claimed the e-mail exchange was enough to modify his employment contract. A court agreed, noting that both parties expressed their acceptance of the changes. The fact that it was in an electronic format instead of on paper had no bearing.

Cite: Stevens v. Publicis S.A., NY Appellate Crt., No 02880.

Popularity: 1% [?]

Tags: E-mail blunders, Employment contract, Public relations, Workplace e-mail