Question

Please answer each question by identifying the correct issue , the rule , analysis , and conclusion , ) Rule , Analysis , Conclusion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON Michael COCCHIARA, Petitioner on Review, LITHIA MOTORS, INC.; and Lithia Motors Support Services, Inc., Respondents on Review, and LITHIA DM, INC., dba Lithia Chrysler Jeep Dodge, Defendant (CC 06-2731-L7; CAA146452; SC S060100) En Banc On review from the Court of Appeals.* Argued and submitted November 8, 2012; resubmitted January 7, 2013. G. Jefferson Campbell, Jr., Medford, argued the cause and filed the brief for petitioner on review Ryan J. Vanderhoof of Hornecker, Cowling, Hassen & Heysell, LLP, Medford, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondents on review. With him on the brief was Eric B. Mitton. Shenoa L. Payne of Haglund, Kelley, Jones & Wilder LLP, Portland, filed the brief for amicus curiae Oregon Trial Lawyers Association. BALMER, C. J The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed. The judgment of the cireuit court is reversed, and the case is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings In this employment case we must determine whether a prospective employee may bring a promissory estoppel claim or a fraudulent misrepresentation claim based on an employer's representations regarding a job that is terminable at will. Plaintiff worked as a salesperson for defendant1 for nearly eight years before he had a heart attaclk that required him to seek a less stressful job. In reliance on his manager's promise that plaintiff had been given a new "corporate" job with defendant that would meet his health needs, plaintiff turned down a job with a different employer. Ultimately, defendant did not hire plaintiff for the corporate job, and plaintiff subsequently had to take jobs that paid less than the corporate job with defendant or less than the position that he had turned down. Plaintiff brought this action against defendant claiming promissory estoppel, audulent misrepresentation, and unlawful employment practices, including employment discrimination. The trial court granted partial summary judgment for defendant-on the promissory estoppel and fraudulent misrepresentation claims-and plaintiff dismissed the unlawful employment practices claim without prejudice. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that, because the corporate job was terminable at will, plaintiff could not reasonably rely on the promise of employment or recover future lost wages. Cocchiara v. Lithia Motors, Inc, 247 Or App 545, 270 P3d 350 (2011). For the reasons that follow, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals. FACTS We state the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff because the trial court granted defendant's motion for partial summary judgment. Petock v. Asante, 351 Or 408, l n 1, 268 P3d 579 (2011) (stating standard). Plaintiff worked as a salesperson at a Lithia Dodge dealership fronm 1997 to October 2005. Following a major heart attack in 2004, plaintiff's doctors recommended that he find a less stressful job that would allow him to work shorter hours and avoid working on the weekends. Plaintiff discussed those needs with Summers, his General Sales Manager at the dealership, but he also pursued other employment because his sales job could not meet his health needs. Plaintiffreceived an offer to be a sales representative for the Medford Mail Tribune, a position that satisfied his health requirements. Plaintiff went to Summers to tell him that he planned to take the Medford Mail Tribune job, and he told Summers that that job would be less stressful and would provide compensation that was comparable to his current position. Summers responded that plaintiff should not accept the Medford Mail Tribune position because he was "too valuable" to defendant. Summers then told plaintiff that there was a new "corporate" job available with defendant that would meet his health needs. After placing a call to defendant's corporate offices, Summers advised plaintiff that he had been given the corporate position and that he would be contacted the next day to come in to finalize the paperwork. Plaintiff then asked Summers to confirm that the offer was definite, given plaintiff's outstanding offer from the Medford Mail Tribune Summers confirmed that plaintiff had been given the job and that the meeting the next day was a "mere formality Plaintiff acknowledges that there was no discussion as to whether or not the corporate job would be terminable at will. After his discussion with Summers, plaintiff told the Medford Mail Tribune that he had decided not to accept its offer because he had received another job with defendant. When plaintiff met with one of defendant's representatives the next day, the representative told laintiff that he had not been hired for the corporate job Instead, the representative was meeting with plaintiff to interview him as one possible candidate for the corporate job. Ultimately, defendant did not hire plaintiff for that job. When plaintiff then tried to accept the Medford Mail Tribune's prior job offer, that job had been filled. Plaintiff

Answer 1

Caption: Michael Cocchiara v Lithia Motors

Issue: Can a potential employee of a company, file a promissory estoppel or false representation claim based on employment and termination at will clause followed by company.

Rule: Under contract law, Employment at-will is the policy which states that the company or the employer can terminate any employee at any time if the employee was hired with employment at will clause. The termination will have no specific reason or warning, stated by the employer. On similar lines, the employee will also have the same rights and will have the privilege to quit the company any time without stating any specific reason for the same, and without serving any notice period.

But the employee has full rights to rely on a job offer , made by the employer, even if the employment at will doctrine is followed in the company. The applicability of this rule increases if the employee had been associated with the employer company for a while.

The doctrine of promissory estoppel states that a promise must be considered to be enforceable by law, even when the same does not have any formal consideration associated with it.

As per Title VII and EEOC, The company will be held responsible for denying equal employment opportunities to the employee if the employee feels that he had been discriminated on some grounds. Title VII of Civil Rights Act, 1964 plays a very important role in the workplace harassment or discrimination cases. Any kind of discrimination from employer on any kind of bias like sex, race, religion, sect, etc. is strictly prohibited under this Title. This serves as the basis for providing equal employment opportunities to all.

Analysis: The plaintiff used to work for defendant’s company for a while. He had suffered a heart attack and had desired to have a less-stressful work environment from the defendant. The plaintiff had claimed that though the defendant affirmed and promised the same initially, they had rejected his request eventually and did not offer him a corporate role, where work stress is comparatively less. He also plead that the company did not offer him the corporate job based on discrimination on his disability to perform under stress. The defendant claimed that the company followed the employment at will doctrine and hence, cannot be considered liable for fulfilling the promise of job offer. The defendant stated that the company terminated the job offer promise made to the plaintiff at will.

Conclusion: The court decided that an at-will job remains the same, even if the potential employee under consideration, is a specially-abled or disabled individual. Hence the claims of the plaintiff do not remain valid.