Jump to Navigation

Employment Contracts

Questions Regarding Your Employment Contract?

An employer contract can protect both employers and employees in the event of termination. Whether you are a small business interested in drafting an employment contract or you are an employee entering into an employer contractual agreement, it is important to know your rights and obligations. Martin D. Haverly has over 15 years of experience representing individuals and businesses with their employment law concerns.

Call (302) 529-0121 today or contact me by e-mail for a consultation to discuss your case. We offer experienced, strategic and compassionate legal advocacy focused on your rights and results.

Protecting Your Rights Under an Employment Contract

We can draft, review, or modify existing contracts to with your interests in mind before you enter an agreement. We will always take the time to explain your rights and obligations and will review any potential modifications that may be necessary to secure your interests in the future. We understand that every case is unique and that every employer and employee faces complex circumstances. Our objective is to clearly explain your rights and any potential risks, before you enter into an employment contract, so you can be comfortable with the terms of your arrangement.

We are lawyers experienced in employment contracts involving:

  • Professional and executive agreements
  • Termination and severance
  • Non-compete clauses
  • Shareholder agreements
  • Contract disputes and litigation

Employment Contract Disputes

In addition to drafting and reviewing of employment contracts, we can also represent your interests if you find yourself in a contract dispute. We will review your contractual obligations and rights and develop a strategy so that you can focus on your business and family. Whether negotiating a settlement with your employer or taking your case through litigation or trial, we will take every necessary step to protect your rights and interests under an employment contract.

Answers for All of Your Business Contract Questions

Contracts are as essential to a business as gasoline is to a car. A poorly written contract can stop your business in its tracks. Understanding your rights and obligations under a contract, as well as the options available for repair in case of a breach, are essential for protecting your interests.

At Martin D. Haverly, Attorney at Law, we review and draft contracts for clients in business and employment-related matters. If you are unsure of whether a contract is in your best interests, we can explain the terms and conditions involved and how it could impact your business, bargaining power, and ability to seek damages in case of a breach.

Contact an Experienced Attorney to Answer Your Employment and Other Contract Questions

Call (302) 529-0121 today or contact my offices by e-mail to schedule an initial consultation to discuss your case. We are conveniently located safely in the Wilmington suburbs at Lancaster Pike (Rte. 48) and Centre Road (Rte. 141).

View Cases

  • Sheridan v. E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 100 F.3d 1061 (3rd Cir. 1996) (en banc) (Plaintiff's jury verdict and the "pretext only" paradigm for proof of intentional discrimination established).
  • Hawkins v. Division of State Police, et al., C.A. No. 99-297-SLR (Religious discrimination case which successfully obtained an offer of judgment and caused the State to stop using the MMPI-1.
  • Miller v. Daimler Chrysler Corp., C. A. No. 01-827-JJF (D.Del. 2003) (Race Discrimination claim survived Motion for Summary Judgment).
  • Panaro v. J.C. Penny, Inc., C.A. 01C-02-010 JOH, 2002 WL 130692 (Del. Super. 2002)(In a personal injury case, admission into evidence of direct examination of deceased deponent/plaintiff does not.
  • Price, et al. v. L. Aaron Chaffinch, et al., C.A. No. 04-956-GMS, 2006 WL 1313178 (D.Del. 2006) (First Amendment Retaliation, Petitions Clause and Defamation Claims survived Motion for Summary Judgment).
  • Reyes v. Freebery, 141 Fed. Appx. 49 (3d Cir. 2005) (per curiam) remanding to District Court to explain its restrictions on the public's right to access to judicial records and counsel's First Amendment.
  • Underwood v. Sear Roebuck and Co., 343 F.Supp.2d 259 (D.Del. 2004) (Gender discrimination claim survived Motion for Summary Judgment).
  • Shotzberger v. State of Delaware Dept. Of Correction, 2004 WL 758354 (D.Del. Jan. 30, 2004) (Gender discrimination claim survived Motion for Summary Judgement).
  • Stull v. Thomas S. Neuberger, P.A., 2003 WL 21481016 (Del. Super. Febr. 28, 2003) (Effect of Delaware accord and satisfaction law on a contract for legal services).
View More Cases

Case Evaluation Form

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.


Privacy Policy