Cocchiara v. Lithia Motors, Inc.
297 P.3d 1277
| Or. | 2013Background
- Cocchiara worked as a Lithia salesperson from 1997 to Oct. 2005; after a 2004 heart attack he sought a less stressful, shorter-hours job.
- Summers, the General Sales Manager, told Cocchiara there was a new corporate job that would meet his health needs and that the offer was definite.
- Cocchiara declined an offer from Medford Mail Tribune based on Summers' assurance and the promise of the corporate job.
- The later interview suggested Cocchiara was only a candidate for the corporate job, which Lithia never hired him for, and he took lower-paying positions elsewhere.
- Cocchiara asserted promissory estoppel, fraudulent misrepresentation, and unlawful employment practices; trial court granted summary judgment on promissory estoppel and fraud claims; Court of Appeals affirmed, applying Slate v. Saxon to bar reliance and damages; Oregon Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether promissory estoppel can lie for an at-will job promise | Cocchiara relies on Restatement §90; reliance reasonable given health, duration unknown | Slate bars reliance on at-will promises; damages cannot arise from future at-will employment | Promissory estoppel may lie; reliance may be reasonable despite at-will nature |
| Whether fraudulent misrepresentation lies for at-will job promises | Promissory–like misrepresentation can support fraud if damages proven | At-will promise cannot sustain damages; reliance/function of at-will is illusory | Fraud claim viable if justifiable reliance and damages shown; not barred by at-will alone |
| Damages for not being hired into corporate job vs. not accepting Medford Mail Tribune offer | Damages may include lost wages from corporate job if proven | Damages limited by at-will status; cannot prove loss from non-hire | Damages potentially recoverable for not being hired; not foreclosed as a matter of law; remand for damages analysis |
| Reasonableness of reliance considering lengthy prior relationship | Promised job to accommodate health could be reasonable reliance | Reliance on at-will promises generally unreasonable | Reasonableness question for the jury; not per se barred by at-will status |
| Scope of Oregon at-will doctrine in this context | At-will does not immunize employers from liability for misrepresentations or promissory estoppel | Maintaining Slate rule is necessary to preserve at-will integrity | At-will doctrine does not foreclose promissory-estoppel or fraudulent-misrepresentation claims in this context; Court of Appeals reversed and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Slate v. Saxon, Marquoit, Bertoni & Todd, 166 Or App 1 (Or. App. 2000) (promissory estoppel barred where at-will employment offered; damages not recoverable)
- Tadsen v. Praegitzer Industries, Inc., 324 Or 465 (Or. 1996) (front pay available; at-will status does not bar damages for anticipated duration)
- Schafer et al v. Fraser et ux, 206 Or 446 (Or. 1955) ( Restatement §90-based promissory estoppel framework)
- Riley Hill General Contractor v. Tandy Corp., 303 Or 390 (Or. 1987) (elements of deceit/fraud and reliance; damages focus)
- U.S. National Bank v. Fought, 291 Or 201 (Or. 1981) (elements of deceit incl. reliance and damages)
- Meade v. Cedarapids, Inc., 164 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 1999) (fraud claim elements; at-will reliance context in federal setting)
- Arboireau v. Adidas-Salomon AG, 347 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 2003) (fraud in hiring context; reliance by at-will employee)