John Kenny v. Onward Search, 713 F. App'x 112

Background

Kenny, an experienced UX contractor, interviewed with Tandem after being referred by Onward; communications about a freelance assignment occurred in Aug–Sept 2014.
Onward’s rep (Court) told Kenny the placement was subject to financial/budget approval and advised him not to resign until approval was received.
After interviews, Court told Kenny Tandem was interested and would submit his requested rate and paperwork; he never received a written offer, start date, or confirmed approval.
Relying on those communications but without written agreement or confirmed approval, Kenny resigned from his full-time job; the client later declined to fund the project and Tandem could not hire him.
Kenny sued Onward and Tandem in New Jersey state court asserting breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, promissory estoppel, and a Consumer Fraud Act claim; defendants removed the case, some claims were dismissed at motion to dismiss, and the district court later granted summary judgment for defendants on the remaining claims.
The Third Circuit affirmed, holding no valid contract or clear promise, no justifiable reliance, and CFA inapplicable to these business-to-business hiring communications.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Breach of contract — was there an enforceable employment contract?	Kenny argues communications and interviews amounted to an offer and acceptance creating a contract.	Onward/Tandem argue no unqualified offer was made; communications repeatedly conditioned hiring on financial approval and lacked essential terms.	No contract — summary judgment for defendants (no offer, no definite essential terms).
Negligent misrepresentation — did defendants negligently make false statements inducing reliance?	Kenny contends Court’s statements led him to reasonably rely and resign.	Defendants say no false statement that approval or offer was granted; Court explicitly said approval was required and not yet obtained.	No negligent misrepresentation — no false, unqualified statement and reliance was not justifiable.
Promissory estoppel — was there a clear and definite promise to enforce?	Kenny asserts defendants’ assurances meant a promise of employment.	Defendants point to express condition (financial approval) and lack of any clear, definite promise.	No promissory estoppel — no clear and definite promise; summary judgment for defendants.
New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act — does CFA apply to these hiring communications?	Kenny argues misrepresentations by Onward/Tandem fall within the CFA.	Defendants argue CFA targets consumer transactions for sale of goods/services; Kenny was not a consumer and this was a hiring placement.	CFA claim dismissed — CFA inapplicable to business placement communications; dismissal affirmed.

Key Cases Cited

Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2009) (standard of plenary review on appeal).
Turner v. Schering-Plough Corp., 901 F.2d 335 (3d Cir. 1990) (summary judgment review standard).
Capogrosso v. Sup. Ct. of N.J., 588 F.3d 180 (3d Cir. 2009) (pleading standards on motion to dismiss).
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for complaints).
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (Twombly plausibility pleading standard).
Weichert Co. Realtors v. Ryan, 608 A.2d 280 (N.J. 1992) (definiteness of contract terms requirement).
Murphy v. Implicito, 920 A.2d 678 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2007) (elements of breach of contract under NJ law).
Masone v. Levine, 887 A.2d 1191 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2005) (elements of negligent misrepresentation).
Castro v. NYT Television, 851 A.2d 88 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2004) (CFA requires misrepresentation connected to sale of merchandise/services).
Del Tufo v. Nat’l Republican Senatorial Comm., 591 A.2d 1040 (N.J. Super. Ct. Ch. Div. 1991) (CFA’s consumer-sale focus).