I vented about this in the general forum, but now it's time to strap the thinking cap back on. Here it goes:
I am currently employed by a large local organization. My position is a 3/4-time position that is renewed on an annual basis. At the last time of renewal (July 1, 2002) I was verbally assured by my supervisor that my contract as a 3/4-time employee would be continued until September, at which point I will be able to start working full-time. At that time I would automatically be rehired as a full-time professional employee. This promise was extended to me after I had verbally committed to remaining in my position for a minimum of three years (this position has previously had a very high turnover.)
Over the past week the organization has been conducting interviews for a vacant position that is identical to mine, and as the interviews came to an end the hiring committee was left with two very promising applicants. Somehow the choice was made to hire both applicants and in the process terminate my contract as of June 30, 2003.
My complaints are:
1. I had a verbal contract from my supervisor that my employment contract would be continued for three years,
2. I am being replaced without having had the chance to go through the application process as the other applicants,
3. Replacing me will result in added expenses to my employer, although the organization claims to be in a budget crunch and has already cut subordinate positions from my department.
I am aware that Arizona is an employment-at-will state, and that based on this I might not have a legal standing. However, not being a legal professional, I thought a verbal agreement/contract took precedence over employment-at-will statutes?
What do you guys think?