Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple's Former Keynote Address Producer Files Suit Claiming Steve Jobs Promised Lifetime Position
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Pics or it didn't happen.
----------
Say what? Livelihood taken away?
That implies that he could not get such employment elsewhere. That means that either writing power-points is not a career, or it means that he had a sweetheart deal and is now grousing that it's over.
Quite frankly, IMHO, it's filing this lawsuit that will take his livelihood away. No one wants to hire anyone who's ever filed a suit like this.
----------
Say what? Livelihood taken away?
That implies that he could not get such employment elsewhere. That means that either writing power-points is not a career, or it means that he had a sweetheart deal and is now grousing that it's over.
Quite frankly, IMHO, it's filing this lawsuit that will take his livelihood away. No one wants to hire anyone who's ever filed a suit like this.
Of course it's not his fault that Steve died. At the same time, the article says that this conversation took place after Jobs returned from treatment for pancreatic cancer. If you knew that the person making this promise to you was fighting off cancer, wouldn't you try to get it in writing? I would.
Keep in mind that this story only has information from the Plaintiff; we're only getting one side of the story, and only a tiny tidbit of actual information. None of us has enough information to believe one side over the other. Some will assume Apple is right because Apple can do no wrong; some will assume the Plaintiff is right because Apple is an evil company. In reality, neither one has enough information to even make a slightly educated guess. Since there's not much info, people go on gut reactions...it happens all the time, and not just with Apple fans.
How dare u
Apple is evil
Can't u guys freaking see the writing on the wall?
Apple is 1984
So let's see: This guy did keynotes for Apple for years? Theoretically, he should be set for life already, assuming he has saved and planned accordingly. Furthermore, he can find new work anywhere.
Methinks this is just a publicity stunt, nothing more.
It's naïve. If you are going to blast someone, check spelling first.
Methinks this is just a publicity stunt, nothing more.
It's naïve. If you are going to blast someone, check spelling first.
I work in a shop with seven other people. We are family. When one of us hits a milestone that has some sort of financial benefit to it, we all celebrate. We don't have meetings about how we can cut someone to save a few bucks.
People are either for or against this guy, with most thinking he is a victim. When I saw that a guy that got fired was claiming that he had a "life time job" with Apple, my first thought was the following scenario:
1. Steve honestly promises this guy a lifetime job at the company, because he does good work and Steve likes him.
2. Steve dies.
3. This guy slacks on the job, does terrible work, and in other ways is relying on the fact that he has a promised lifetime paycheck.
4. Apple as a company gets sick of this, and fires his ares before he takes any more undeserved money from the company.
5. He sues because he isn't getting his lifetime paycheck any more.
Do we have any reason to believe it didn't go down like that? Apple pays many people many hundreds of thousands of dollars. If this guy was good at what he did, Apple would not squabble over money. However, if this guy were WASTING company money by being lazy, you can bet that the Apple we know (pre or post Jobs) would fire him on the spot. That's how Apple rolls, and how they always have (Since Steve returned at least).
But maybe he is a victim and Apple is just trying to save a buck? I'm sure that's it
1. Steve honestly promises this guy a lifetime job at the company, because he does good work and Steve likes him.
2. Steve dies.
3. This guy slacks on the job, does terrible work, and in other ways is relying on the fact that he has a promised lifetime paycheck.
4. Apple as a company gets sick of this, and fires his ares before he takes any more undeserved money from the company.
5. He sues because he isn't getting his lifetime paycheck any more.
Do we have any reason to believe it didn't go down like that? Apple pays many people many hundreds of thousands of dollars. If this guy was good at what he did, Apple would not squabble over money. However, if this guy were WASTING company money by being lazy, you can bet that the Apple we know (pre or post Jobs) would fire him on the spot. That's how Apple rolls, and how they always have (Since Steve returned at least).
But maybe he is a victim and Apple is just trying to save a buck? I'm sure that's it
You have the idea situation, and I hope that is stays that way for you.
But people are people and while you don't have meetings to cut someone out, doesn't mean someone else isn't.
My point was only that in a small company, there is little recourse for unjustly being fired.
You really believe anything put in front of you, it seems. Why, in a million years, would Apple fire this ONE guy to avoid a stock payout when they have no problems giving shares to everyone else associated with the company?
----------
Prove it was promised, besides some random guy who, literally, did a slideshow a couple of times a year, saying he had a closed-door verbal agreement with a dead man. Seriously. And are you honestly claiming that this man's work as so pivotal to Apple as a company that, somehow, NO ONE would be able to do it? And it is the ONLY job he can possibly get? It's not the Mona Lisa for god's sake. But hey, enjoy all that baseless, silly speculation.
While the facts of the case are not available to us, a scenario that is extremely typical is that he may have had an issue with his vesting, took it up with Steve and Steve told him that the date was not an issue because he'd always have a job with Apple.
Now he's let go, he wants to be fully vested. I can't imagine he actually wants to continue working for the people that fired him.
Now he's let go, he wants to be fully vested. I can't imagine he actually wants to continue working for the people that fired him.
While it's true that lawyers sometimes bring frivolous cases, it's generally true that they try to avoid cases that won't make any money. Given that Apple will have good lawyers and ability to defend itself, there's probably more to this case than this guy's word alone. But we'll have to wait and see.
In most cases, an oral contract is as legally binding as a written contract, although it is more difficult to prove the existence of the contract or its terms, of course. However, certain kinds of contracts are not enforceable unless written, including, under the Calif. statute of frauds: "An agreement that by its terms is not to be performed during the lifetime of the promisor."
But whether this is a contract that meets this condition is almost like a law school exam question. In general, if I promise someone lifetime employment it is a contract that can be performed during my life. However, if Steve Jobs, sick with cancer, promises someone lifetime employment, he may well be intending to make an agreement that is not to be performed during his lifetime. In which case the contract would have to be written, or at least evidenced by something in writing, like an e-mail.
Notes: (1) "Verbal" means oral *or* written. (2) In construing a contract, the goal of a court is to determine the actual agreement between the parties. (3) Even if Steve wrote an e-mail promising lifetime employment, this may be an unenforceable promise rather than a contract. (Although disregarding a promise like this made by Steve is probably bad PR).
In most cases, an oral contract is as legally binding as a written contract, although it is more difficult to prove the existence of the contract or its terms, of course. However, certain kinds of contracts are not enforceable unless written, including, under the Calif. statute of frauds: "An agreement that by its terms is not to be performed during the lifetime of the promisor."
But whether this is a contract that meets this condition is almost like a law school exam question. In general, if I promise someone lifetime employment it is a contract that can be performed during my life. However, if Steve Jobs, sick with cancer, promises someone lifetime employment, he may well be intending to make an agreement that is not to be performed during his lifetime. In which case the contract would have to be written, or at least evidenced by something in writing, like an e-mail.
Notes: (1) "Verbal" means oral *or* written. (2) In construing a contract, the goal of a court is to determine the actual agreement between the parties. (3) Even if Steve wrote an e-mail promising lifetime employment, this may be an unenforceable promise rather than a contract. (Although disregarding a promise like this made by Steve is probably bad PR).
Wow. Tried and convicted already. Anyone want to let them have their day in court before branding them the scum of the earth?
New Derivative Phrase: _____ would never have...
I don't know about leaving a "bad taste." But I do predict that, on September 12, 2012, we will see a new thread of comments. Something like, when discussing the Keynote presentation:
If he has proper proof, hopefully Apple does the right thing (hire him back, or give him proper compensation)...many people on here love the keynotes. Now each product launch could have a bad taste to it.
I don't know about leaving a "bad taste." But I do predict that, on September 12, 2012, we will see a new thread of comments. Something like, when discussing the Keynote presentation:
I understand Cook does presentations differently than Steve but if this is true Cook should have honored Steve's wishes and given the guy a different job within Apple.
The company I work for is like a family too (although much larger). This is part of the materials they shared with us to help with the transition associated with the massive layoffs we underwent not too long ago.
http://db.tt/kRtX8qEl
This link downloads the wmv file. Sorry about that. Let me add that it is a keeper.
Yours is a one sided perspective. Most all employment has no "loyalty" in either direction. Employees are free to leave when they find a better job, and companies are free to let employees go when they find a better replacement. It works both ways. A friend's company just had over a dozen key employees quit and go to a competitor. His company is on the verge of going under. Another friend works for a company that has annual written employment contracts. The company guarantees wages and position and the employee guarantees they'll stay with the company.
It seems his job was writing speeches for Steve Jobs. I think Apple doesn't have much use for those anymore.
Well, no. Steve Jobs doesn't work at Apple anymore. We can all wish he did, but he doesn't.
It's not only hard to prove, it is also very easy to claim. Especially when the guy who agreed to the contract is dead. In this case, I wouldn't interpret "you will always have a job at Apple" as a promise / contract of lifetime employment. It would be very highly unusual for any company to enter such a contract. I've never actually heard of anyone having such a contract. I'd interpret it as an opinion, and opinions can be wrong.
So how many Apple employees do have a lifetime employment contract? How many employees at any other company?
Last edited:
This "contract" does not have to be in writing under the statute of frauds because it conceivably could have lasted less than a year. However, that does not mean there are some other employment laws in CA that control in this situation.