Donald R. Scribner v. Worldcom, Inc., a Georgia Corporation Case Brief

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit2001Docket #450833
249 F.3d 902 2001 Daily Journal DAR 4467 17 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 961 26 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1860 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3618 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 8562 2001 WL 476879 Contracts Corporations Employment Law

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

4 min read

tl;dr: An employer with contractual discretion to define “cause” for terminating stock options could not use a secret, non-performance-related definition. The court held this violated the employee’s justified expectations and the implied covenant of good faith, forcing the options to vest.

Legal Significance: A party’s contractual discretion to interpret terms is limited by the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, which protects the other party’s justified expectations based on the ordinary meaning of words and the spirit of the bargain.

Donald R. Scribner v. Worldcom, Inc., a Georgia Corporation 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

Donald Scribner, an exemplary employee of WorldCom, received stock option agreements providing that his unvested options would accelerate and become immediately exercisable if he were terminated “without cause.” The contracts did not define “cause,” but the governing Stock Option Plan granted a committee appointed by WorldCom’s Board broad discretion to interpret the plan’s terms. WorldCom subsequently sold the division in which Scribner worked and, as a condition of the sale, terminated his employment. The termination was concededly not due to any deficiency in Scribner’s performance. Despite this, the committee exercised its discretion and determined that the termination was “with cause” for the purpose of the stock option agreements, thereby preventing the options from vesting. The committee’s stated rationale was that it was not in WorldCom’s interest for former employees to retain options. Scribner refused a partial vesting offer that required a release of all claims and sued for breach of contract when WorldCom refused his attempt to exercise all his options.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Does the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing prevent a party with discretionary authority to interpret a contract from defining a term like “cause” in a way that contradicts its ordinary meaning and frustrates the other party’s justified expectations?

Yes. The committee breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair 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 n

Read the full analysis

The complete holding, rule, and analysis for this case are available to LSD+ subscribers.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

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

Does the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing prevent a party with discretionary authority to interpret a contract from defining a term like “cause” in a way that contradicts its ordinary meaning and frustrates the other party’s justified expectations?

Conclusion

This case establishes that contractual discretion is not a license to redefine 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 e

Legal Rule

Under Washington law, a party's discretionary authority under a contract is limited 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 molli

Legal Analysis

The court, applying Washington contract law, determined the parties' intent by examining 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 est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • In a stock option contract, an undefined term like “termination without
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 pr

Read the full analysis

The complete holding, rule, and analysis for this case are available to LSD+ subscribers.

Start 14-Day Free Trial