270 P.3d 350
Or. Ct. App.2011Background
- Plaintiff, former car salesman for defendants, sought a less stressful job after a heart attack.
- Defendants allegedly promised a new corporate purchasing position accommodating his health needs and to keep him from accepting another offer.
- Plaintiff withdrew from an offer with Medford Mail Tribune based on those promises.
- Plaintiff later learned he was only being interviewed for the corporate position and was not hired for it.
- Plaintiff claimed damages related to wages he would have earned in the corporate job and sued for fraudulent misrepresentation, promissory estoppel, and disability-based discrimination under ORS 659A.112.
- Trial court granted summary judgment on the common-law claims; statutory claim dismissed without prejudice; appellate review followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Slate control damages and reliance in at-will job promises? | Slate does not bar reliance since accommodation implied a non-at-will job. | Slate controls; at-will promise cannot support damages or reasonable reliance. | Slate applies; no actionable reliance or damages. |
| Can promissory estoppel survive where promised employment is at-will? | Promises were made as an accommodation for disability; damages flow from reliance. | At-will nature defeats reasonable reliance and damages. | Promissory estoppel barred by at-will status. |
| Does the alleged fraudulent misrepresentation survive given the at-will nature and damages limit? | False assurances caused reliance and damages. | Damages mirror promised employment and are not recoverable under Slate. | Fraud claim defeated by Slate-based reasoning. |
| Did disability-discrimination statutes convert an at-will job into non-terminable employment when offered as accommodation? | Accommodations create non-at-will employment entitlements. | Statutes prohibit discrimination but do not erase at-will status. | Statutes do not transform at-will job; Slate controls; summary judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Slate v. Saxon, Marquoit, Bertoni & Todd, 166 Or.App. 1 (2000) (at-will employment; no reasonable reliance; no damages)
- Knepper v. Brown, 345 Or. 320 (2008) (elements of fraudulent misrepresentation)
- Riley Hill General Contractor v. Tandy Corp., 303 Or. 390 (1987) (elements of tort action in deceit)
- Webb v. Clark, 274 Or. 387 (1976) (elements of actionable fraud)
- Arboireau v. Adidas-Salomon AG, 347 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 2003) (reasonable reliance on job-condition misrepresentations)
- Meade v. Cedarapids, Inc., 164 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 1999) (reliance about growth/conditions of promised employment)
- Washburn v. Columbia Forest Products, Inc., 340 Or. 469 (2006) (disability-discrimination law; at-will employment generally)
- Neff v. Jackson County, 187 Or.App. 402 (2003) (state court interpretation of Oregon law on disability-related claims)