Stock options, incentive bonuses and other attractive compensation deals are the hottest thing for employers who want to stimulate employees to take a personal interest in their company’s success.

But for Guilford health insurance broker Edward F. Meaney III, discussions about bonus pay have been a rollercoaster of disappointment. In an Aug. 31 Supreme Court ruling, he found he couldn’t keep his big jury award. His bonus talks never resulted in an agreement to pay anything, or defined bonus-worthy performance above and beyond his contract, so he had no legal basis for his unjust enrichment claim.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]