297 P.3d 1277
Or.2013Background
- Petitioner worked as a salesperson for Lithia Dodge from 1997 to 2005 and, after a heart attack, sought a less stressful job.
- Summers, the General Sales Manager, told petitioner of a new corporate job that would meet his health needs and that the offer was definitive.
- Petitioner turned down an offer from Medford Mail Tribune based on the corporate job promise.
- Defendant later indicated petitioner was not hired for the corporate job and instead met as a candidate for it; the corporate job was never made real.
- Petitioner sued for promissory estoppel, fraudulent misrepresentation, and unlawful employment practices; trial court granted summary judgment on promissory estoppel and fraud claims; Court of Appeals affirmed.
- Court holds that the at-will nature of the corporate job does not as a matter of law bar promissory estoppel or fraudulent misrepresentation claims and remands for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May promissory estoppel apply to at-will employment promises? | Cocci argue reliance on at-will promise is reasonable. | Lithia argues at-will promises cannot support promissory estoppel. | Yes; at-will promises may support promissory estoppel with damages. |
| Can damages for future lost wages be recovered where the promised job was at will? | Petitioner seeks damages for income from the corporate job. | At-will nature precludes loss of earnings as damages. | Not per se barred; damages may be proved for the corporate job. |
| Can fraudulent misrepresentation be proven for at-will employment offers? | Misrepresentation relied on a definite job offer. | Reliance may be unreasonable due to at-will nature. | Yes; justifiable reliance and damages may be shown. |
| Does Slate foreclose relief for at-will employment promises? | Slate should not bar promissory estoppel in all at-will cases. | Slate controls; no reliance or damages possible. | Slate not controlling; this case allows promissory estoppel damages under proper proof. |
Key Cases Cited
- Slate v. Saxon, Marquoit, Bertoni & Todd, 166 Or App 1, 999 P.2d 1152 (Or App 1999) (promissory estoppel analysis in at-will context; damages may be possible)
- Tadsen v. Praegitzer Industries, Inc., 324 Or 465, 928 P.2d 980 (Oregon 1990s) (front pay not categorically unavailable to at-will employees; duration may be proven)
- Riley Hill General Contractor v. Tandy Corp., 303 Or 390, 737 P.2d 595 (Oregon 1987) (fraud elements; damages requirement in deceit)
- Schafer et al v. Fraser et ux, 206 Or 446, 290 P2d 190 (Oregon 1955) ( Restatement-based promissory estoppel guidance; reliance considerations)
- United States Nat. Bank v. Fought, 291 Or 201, 630 P2d 337 (Oregon 1981) (fraud elements; justifiable reliance and damages)
- Cocchiara v. Lithia Motors, Inc., 247 Or App 545, 270 P.3d 350 (Or App 2011) (precedent at Court of Appeals; guiding analysis in promissory estoppel/fraud)