Neiman Marcus Employment Agreement

In early 1984, Carter Hawley Hale Stores, Inc. («Carter Hawley») appointed David Dworkin as President of the Neiman-Marcus Division. His five-year employment contract included a «persistent» provision; at the end of each year, an additional year was added to the back of the contract, so Dworkin made it a new five-year contract. The contract provided for a base salary and a number of other benefits, including stock options, annual bonuses and various executives. (v) at the end of the employee`s employment in the company for any reason or at the request of the company at any time, the employee must provide the company with all confidential information and copies of it, in what physical or media form (including electronic); and the same distinction applies in the case of the Michigan Supreme Court, the NMG after oral proceedings, Stefanac v. Cranbrook Educational Community, 435 Moi. 155, 458 N.W.2d 56 (1990), citing this counterparty. The consideration was paid and expressly recorded as severance pay. Courts impose written authorizations and require tendering, otherwise «the principle of market applicability in the broadest sense would be compromised.» 458 N.W.2d to 66. NMG designed a publication, but never submitted it to Dworkin, and Dworkin certainly never accepted such a publication.

His employment contract persisted, making NMG`s enthusiastic quote about cases where contract inviability is touted a bit perverse. A worker dismissed in violation of an employment contract cannot claim damages under Texas law if the net salary is roughly equal to the new employer during the previous job. Farley v. Universal Mills, 116 S.W.2d 488, 491 (Tex.Civ.App.-Amarillo 1938, no writ). NMG argues that the evidence conclusively demonstrated that Dworkin`s income from his new employer Bonwit Teller did exceed his income with Neiman-Marcus and that, as a result, the court failed in rejecting NMG`s application for judgment despite the verdict.