Connection lost
Server error
Geysen v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
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 fired a salesman, denying him commissions for deals made but not yet invoiced, per their contract. The court upheld the contract term but allowed the salesman to sue on the theory that the employer fired him in bad faith specifically to avoid paying the commissions.
Legal Significance: This case affirms that while employers can contractually set conditions for earning commissions, they breach the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing if they terminate an employee in bad faith to prevent those conditions from being met and avoid paying for past services.
Geysen v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc. 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
The plaintiff, Kevin Geysen, was an at-will business development manager for the defendant, Securitas Security Services. His compensation included a base salary and commissions. The governing sales incentive plan stipulated that commissions were payable only after the work had been performed and invoiced to the client. Crucially, the plan stated, “Upon the [manager’s] termination of employment, all commissions cease, except that any commissionable amounts that have been invoiced [to the client] prior to the [manager’s] [t]ermination [d]ate … will still be paid….” The defendant terminated the plaintiff’s employment, citing an investigation into improper business activities. At the time of termination, the plaintiff had secured several accounts for which services had been rendered but invoices had not yet been sent to the clients. The plaintiff sued, alleging the defendant’s stated reason for termination was a pretext to avoid paying him these commissions. He brought claims for violation of Connecticut’s wage statute, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and wrongful termination. The trial court struck the latter two claims but found for the plaintiff on the wage claim, deeming the commission provision contrary to public policy.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does an employer breach the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by terminating an at-will employee for the bad-faith purpose of preventing the satisfaction of a contractual condition precedent to the payment of commissions for past services?
Yes. The court reversed the trial court’s judgment in part, holding that 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 no
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does an employer breach the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by terminating an at-will employee for the bad-faith purpose of preventing the satisfaction of a contractual condition precedent to the payment of commissions for past services?
Conclusion
This decision clarifies that an employer's contractual right to define when commissions 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 exerci
Legal Rule
While an employment contract provision conditioning commission payments on an event occurring 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 c
Legal Analysis
The Supreme Court of Connecticut conducted a two-part analysis. First, addressing 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 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 aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco labori
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A commission clause requiring client invoicing before an employee’s termination for