Cocchiara v. Lithia Motors, Inc.
35 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 106, 353 Or. 282, 297 P.3d 1277 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The at-will nature of a prospective employment position does not, as a matter of law, bar a claim for promissory estoppel or fraudulent misrepresentation when an employer revokes a job offer upon which the prospective employee reasonably relied to their detriment.
Facts:
- David Cocchiara worked as a salesperson for Lithia Motors for nearly eight years.
- Following a heart attack, Cocchiara's doctors advised him to seek a less stressful job.
- Cocchiara received a suitable job offer from the Medford Mail Tribune and informed his manager at Lithia, Summers, of his intent to accept it.
- Summers urged Cocchiara to decline the Tribune's offer, stating he was 'too valuable' and that Lithia had a new, less stressful 'corporate' job for him.
- After making a phone call, Summers definitively told Cocchiara he had been given the corporate job and that a meeting the next day was a 'mere formality' to finalize paperwork.
- Relying on Summers's assurance, Cocchiara formally rejected the job offer from the Medford Mail Tribune.
- The next day, a different Lithia representative informed Cocchiara he had not been hired and was merely one of several candidates being interviewed for the position.
- Lithia ultimately did not hire Cocchiara for the corporate job, and by that time, the position at the Medford Mail Tribune had been filled.
Procedural Posture:
- Cocchiara sued Lithia Motors in a state trial court, asserting claims for promissory estoppel, fraudulent misrepresentation, and unlawful employment practices.
- Lithia Motors filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the promissory estoppel and fraudulent misrepresentation claims.
- The trial court granted Lithia's motion for partial summary judgment.
- Cocchiara dismissed his remaining unlawful employment practices claim without prejudice.
- Cocchiara, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's summary judgment ruling to the Oregon Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, siding with Lithia Motors, the appellee.
- Cocchiara sought review from the Oregon Supreme Court, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the at-will nature of a promised employment position, as a matter of law, prevent a prospective employee from bringing claims for promissory estoppel and fraudulent misrepresentation based on the employer's revocation of the job offer?
Opinions:
Majority - Balmer, C. J.
No. The at-will nature of a promised job does not, as a matter of law, make a prospective employee's reliance on that promise unreasonable or preclude claims for promissory estoppel and fraudulent misrepresentation. The court reasoned that the at-will employment doctrine focuses on the right to terminate an existing employment relationship, not on the enforceability of a promise to hire. An employer's right to fire an employee at any time does not create a conclusive legal presumption that the employer will exercise that right, nor does it mean a prospective employee can never reasonably rely on an offer of employment. The reasonableness of the reliance is a question of fact for a jury, which can consider factors like a long-standing employment relationship and the definiteness of the employer's assurances. The court also held that potential damages, such as lost future wages from the promised job, are not automatically barred; analogous to wrongful termination cases, an at-will employee is entitled to attempt to prove the likely duration of the employment and the resulting damages.
Analysis:
This decision rejects a rigid, formalistic application of the at-will employment doctrine at the hiring stage, aligning Oregon with a more modern view that acknowledges real-world reliance on job offers. By treating the reasonableness of reliance as a question of fact for the jury rather than a matter of law, the court makes it more difficult for employers to obtain summary judgment in cases where job offers are revoked after a candidate has acted in reliance. The ruling establishes that the at-will doctrine is not a shield against liability for pre-employment promises, potentially increasing employer accountability during the hiring process and protecting prospective employees who turn down other opportunities.
Unlock the full brief for Cocchiara v. Lithia Motors, Inc.