Mers v. Dispatch Printing Co.
19 Ohio St. 3d 100, 483 N.E.2d 150, 19 Ohio B. 261 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The doctrine of promissory estoppel is applicable to oral employment-at-will agreements. An employer's promise is binding if the employer should reasonably expect it to induce action or forbearance by the employee, it does induce such action or forbearance, and injustice can only be avoided by enforcing the promise.
Facts:
- An employee (appellant) had an oral employment agreement with the Dispatch.
- During his employment, the employee was faced with criminal charges.
- The Dispatch promised the employee he would be reinstated with back pay if the criminal charges were 'favorably resolved'.
- The employee also alleged that at the time of hiring, he received oral assurances and an employment manual indicating he would only be terminated for just cause.
- The employee relied on the Dispatch's promise regarding reinstatement.
- Subsequently, the state dismissed the criminal charges against the employee.
- The Dispatch then terminated the employee's employment and refused to reinstate him.
Procedural Posture:
- The employee (appellant) filed a lawsuit against his employer, the Dispatch (appellees), in the trial court.
- The Dispatch moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted the Dispatch's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the employee's case.
- The employee, as appellant, appealed to the court of appeals (an intermediate appellate court).
- The court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court in favor of the Dispatch.
- The employee then appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio.
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 doctrine of promissory estoppel create an exception to the employment-at-will doctrine, allowing an employee to enforce an employer's promise of reinstatement even in the absence of a formal employment contract?
Opinions:
Majority - Celebrezze, C.J.
Yes. The doctrine of promissory estoppel is applicable and binding to oral employment-at-will agreements. While the court declines to abolish the employment-at-will doctrine, it recognizes exceptions in the interest of justice. The court holds that a promise which the employer should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance by the employee, and which does induce it, is enforceable if injustice can be avoided. The meaning of the employer's promise ('favorable resolution') is a question of fact for a jury to decide based on what the promisor should have reasonably expected the employee to believe. Similarly, the facts and circumstances surrounding an employment agreement, including handbooks and oral representations, can create implied contractual terms that alter the at-will relationship, which is also a question for the trier of fact.
Dissenting - Holmes, J.
No. The court should not create an exception to the well-established employment-at-will doctrine in this case. The employee handbook contained non-mandatory policy guidelines and did not alter the at-will status. As a matter of law, the employer's interpretation of 'favorable resolution' to require a 'clean bill of health' beyond a mere dismissal of charges was reasonable, especially given the sensitive nature of the employee's work. Therefore, there was no genuine issue of fact, and the summary judgment for the employer was correctly granted.
Concurring - Douglas, J.
Yes. The majority correctly recognizes promissory estoppel as an exception to the antiquated and discredited employment-at-will doctrine. This decision is a courageous first step away from the court's prior rigid adherence to the doctrine. The concurrence expresses hope that the court will now be receptive to considering other exceptions based on public policy, contract, and tort theories to prevent unjust violations of the employment relationship.
Analysis:
This decision marks a significant shift in Ohio's employment law by creating major exceptions to the traditional, rigid doctrine of employment-at-will. By recognizing promissory estoppel and implied contract terms as valid claims, the court empowered employees to challenge terminations that were previously unassailable. This case opened the door for wrongful discharge litigation in Ohio, forcing employers to be more cautious about oral promises and representations made in employee handbooks. It moved the focus from a simple presumption of at-will employment to a fact-specific inquiry into the actual understanding and representations between the employer and employee.
Unlock the full brief for Mers v. Dispatch Printing Co.