A judge ruled recently that a Louisiana man failed to prove his breach of contract case against One Stop Construction and Restoration.
In December 2008, the Southeast Texas Record reported that Temple Willett filed suit against One Stop, alleging the company terminated him without the three-year notice required under his employment contract.
Court documents show Willett and One Stop entered into a written employment agreement Jan. 23, 2007, which stated Willett was to be employed as a superintendent and make $800 per week, in addition to a weekly vehicle allowance of $125.
On March 31 a bench trial was held in Judge Milton Shuffield's 136th District Court, where he found in favor of One Stop, ruling that Willett failed to prove his case.
During the hearing, One Stop attorney John Morgan said the three-year termination notice outlined in Willett's contract was a "typographical error."
Furthermore, he said Willett quit of his own accord to pursue employment elsewhere and filed suit against One Stop only after the company declined to give him his job back.
Since the suit was filed, Morgan also said Willett has engaged in "slander" against the company.
Conversely, Willett, who acted as his own attorney, said he received nothing but praise during his time with One Stop and the company was legally bound to abide by their agreement.
Willett produced six witnesses Ã¯Â¿Â½ all subcontractors who worked under him Ã¯Â¿Â½ who testified that he treated them well and finished every job to the satisfaction of One Stop.
Under the terms of the agreement, Willett was to be paid the wages for the entire employment term, and if either he or One Stop Construction and Restoration wished to terminate the agreement, they would be required to submit a three-year notice.
"Therefore, Defendant is also obligated to pay Plaintiff such compensation due and owing under the Agreement as well as interest of 18 percent APR on such amounts, as stipulated in the Agreement," the suit states.
Willett was suing for an award for lost wages and the contractually agreed upon interest.
Case No. D182-752