Shirley
MacLaine had been contracted to be in a musical for $750k.
The
studio decided not to make the movie.
The
studio offered MacLaine a different movie at the same salary.
MacLaine
felt the job offers were not equivalent, and sued for breach of contract.
There
was no issue of breach.It was
simply a question of damages (summary judgment was granted).Trial court decided that the jobs were
not equivalent and awarded MacLaine the entire salary ($750k).
Summary judgment is used when the facts are not in dispute.There is only a dispute on the law.
The
Appellate Court affirmed.They
found that the employee has to make reasonable
efforts to find new work, which they believe MacClaine did.
Dissenting
opinion on whether or not the different movie was equivalent, and if so, whether
not taking the job means that reasonable efforts were not taken.
The
job was for the same salary, and possibly comparable.The court found that they weren't since
the movie genre was different and the location was different.The dissent argued that although the
movies were different, the job
was the same.
Trivial
differences in jobs are generally not considered enough, since no two
jobs are exactly the same.
Since
in the dissenting opinion, there was an issue of fact (whether the jobs were equivalent), summary judgment was not warranted.
