Gary Sawyer, Doug Kempf, Peter Barnaba, Sr., Geoff Rorrev, Tim Gregory v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company, 430 S.W.3d 396

In 2002 DuPont announced a spin-off of its Terathane unit into a wholly owned subsidiary, DuPont Textiles and Interiors (DTI); employees were urged to transfer to DTI.
DuPont allegedly told Unit employees DTI would not be sold; unbeknownst to them DuPont had discussed a sale to Koch and later negotiated and closed that sale.
Most Unit employees moved to DTI; after the sale Koch reduced their compensation and retirement benefits.
63 former employees sued DuPont in 2006 for fraudulently inducing them to terminate DuPont employment and accept DTI employment; they seek over $23 million.
DuPont argued at-will employees cannot sue for fraud based on promises of continued employment; 59 employees relied on a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) that limited discharge to "just cause." DuPont countered the CBA was terminable on 60 days’ notice.
The Fifth Circuit certified two Texas-law questions: (1) may at-will employees sue their employer for fraud causing loss of employment, and (2) may employees covered by a 60-day-terminable CBA limiting discharge to just cause sue for such fraud?

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Can at-will employees bring fraud claims against their employer for loss of employment?	Employees: fraud claims may lie when employer misrepresents intent to continue employment.	DuPont: at-will doctrine bars fraud claims dependent on continued employment.	No — at-will employees cannot recover in fraud for promises dependent on continued employment; such promises are illusory and reliance is unjustifiable.
2) Can employees covered by a CBA that limits discharge to "just cause" (though terminable on 60 days’ notice) bring fraud claims for being induced to leave?	Employees: CBA protections allow a fraud claim because they were not truly at-will and could show detrimental reliance.	DuPont: even if CBA was terminable, it remained in force and provided exclusive remedies for wrongful discharge; fraud suit would circumvent the parties’ bargain.	No (in these circumstances) — because the CBA, as in effect, modified at-will status and provided contractual remedies for unjust discharge, the plaintiffs cannot bypass those remedies via a fraud action.

Montgomery Cnty. Hosp. Dist. v. Brown, 965 S.W.2d 501 (Tex. 1998) (states Texas presumption of at-will employment absent explicit agreement otherwise)
Sabine Pilot Serv., Inc. v. Hauck, 687 S.W.2d 733 (Tex. 1985) (recognizes narrow common-law exception barring discharge for refusal to perform illegal act)
City of Midland v. O’Bryant, 18 S.W.3d 209 (Tex. 2000) (refuses to impose duty of good faith when express contractual discharge limits exist)
Johnson & Johnson Medical, Inc. v. Sanchez, 924 S.W.2d 925 (Tex. 1996) (held no fraud recovery where plaintiff lacked detrimental reliance evidence)
Texas Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Cos. v. Sears, 84 S.W.3d 604 (Tex. 2002) (declines to impose common-law duties that would erode at-will doctrine)
Spoljaric v. Percival Tours, Inc., 708 S.W.2d 432 (Tex. 1986) (addresses employer intent in promise of future compensation; not a general ruling that fraud claims can supplant at-will rule)
Stone v. Lawyers Title Ins. Corp., 554 S.W.2d 183 (Tex. 1977) (sets elements of fraud requiring justifiable reliance)