Legal Question in Employment Law in District of Columbia

Re: letter of hire

The answer will require research to determine whether the letter of hire established a binding contract for hire. That said, there may be nothing to stop Carnegie from having terminated him the day after he was to assume the permanent position (thereby nullifying any damages), unless there was a "for cause" provision in the contract.

As for the contract on the house, it may come under "foreseeable damages" but that would have to be researched as well.

Re: letter of hire

The District of Columbia is what's called an employment at will jurisdiction which as a practical matter means that an employee working without the protection of a contract or collective bargaining type of agreement can be fired(or not hired) for almost any reason which doesn't violate federal(or local D.C.)anti-discrimination laws.

The "letter of hire" which you've described would

not appear to have been a contract and therefore

would mean nothing in terms of conferring upon a prospective hiree such as your husband a right of recourse against the employer in the event that he in fact was not hired. These kinds of letters are sent out all the time by various organizations in the District of Columbia, many of which are government-funded or partially funded, and when the funding suddenly dries up, unfortunately, so do the proffered jobs. Needless to say, noone should ever incur a serious financial obligation such as a mortgage on a house based upon the kind of letter which you've described. It's far more prudent(and less costly) to wait until one first actually has the job and then passed the required probationary period before even beginning to think about taking on such an obligation.

As to what your husband's recourse might now be, given the foregoing, it would be my considered

legal opinion that it is zero. Nada. No research

required on this one.