Choice! Power, L.P. v. Michael Feeley Case Brief
Audio lesson available for this case
LSD+ subscribers can listen to a recorded discussion of this brief - the full facts, holding, and reasoning in audio form.
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: An employer with a term contract fired a broker for failing a newly required exam. The court found this was a breach of contract because the employer’s written notices specified a lesser consequence for failure—inability to broker certain products—not termination.
Legal Significance: Courts will narrowly construe “for cause” termination clauses in term employment contracts, preventing employers from using general “failure to follow instructions” provisions to create a de facto at-will relationship, which would render the term agreement meaningless.
Choice! Power, L.P. v. Michael Feeley Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Michael Feeley entered into a 54-month employment agreement with Choice! Power, L.P. to work as a broker. The contract explicitly stated it was for a term and not an at-will relationship, permitting termination only for “Cause.” One definition of “Cause” was “materially violat[ing] any specific written instructions or policies of Employer.” During Feeley’s employment, federal regulations changed, requiring brokers of financially-settled contracts to pass a Series 3 examination. Choice sent several emails to its brokers regarding this new requirement. The emails described the exam as a “MANDATORY OBLIGATION” and instructed brokers to pass by a certain date. However, the final, most specific email stated, “If you fail to register for the exam by the end of the year, WE CANNOT EMPLOY YOU TO BROKER FUTURES AS OF 1/1/2013.” Feeley took the exam three times but did not pass. Choice initially reassigned him to broker physically-settled contracts, which did not require the exam. After two unprofitable months in that role, Choice terminated Feeley, citing his failure to pass the exam as a material violation of a written instruction. Evidence showed that seven other brokers who failed the exam were not terminated.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did an employer have “cause” to terminate an employee under a term employment contract for failing to pass a required exam, when the employer’s written communications specified the consequence of failure was an inability to perform certain duties rather than termination of employment?
No, the employer breached the employment agreement. The court held that Choice Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Did an employer have “cause” to terminate an employee under a term employment contract for failing to pass a required exam, when the employer’s written communications specified the consequence of failure was an inability to perform certain duties rather than termination of employment?
Conclusion
This case serves as a key precedent illustrating that courts protect the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris n
Legal Rule
When an employment agreement is for a specified term and allows termination Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id e
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis centered on the interpretation of the term employment contract, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- An employer cannot interpret a single clause in a “for cause”