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.

Amazon.com Coupons