 |
|
Changing Job Based on False Statements
Changing Job Based on False Statements
- Case: Helmer v. Bingham Toyota Isuzu, 129 Cal.
App. 4th 1121, 29 Cal. Rptr. 3d 136 (2005)
- Facts:
-
- Plaintiff Kevin Helmer filed suit against Bingham Toyota Isuzu
alleging that the defendant, through Helmer's former supervisor,
Bob Clark, fraudulently induced him to leave his prior secure job
as a parts and service manager.
- Helmer claimed that Clark had assured him that he would make
over $70,000 a year in a similar position with the defendant.
- However, once Plaintiff moved, he did not receive the
compensation promised by Clark.
- When Plaintiff complained about the difference between the
promised compensation and the salary he received, Clark was evasive
and eventually fired Plaintiff.
The Old Law
- The law before Helmer indicated that a plaintiff who
pursued an action for promissory fraud against his employer could
only recover damages for the loss of income associated with
the plaintiff's former employment (as long as the damages
were not speculative or remote).
- For a promissory estoppel case (i.e., when the plaintiff relies
on the employer's promises regarding the new salary, to his
detriment), a plaintiff could recover future wages (that were not
speculative or remote).
Analysis and Holding
- The Helmer Court observed that promissory fraud (i.e., when the
new employer does not intend to fulfill the promise to the
plaintiff at the time the promise was made) was
more severe than promissory estoppel.
- Therefore, the Court held that for promissory fraud
cases, the plaintiff may seek recover for future lost income as
long as the damages are not speculative or remote.
|