## Facts

- Robert Blinn, age 67, worked for Beatrice Community Hospital and Health Center, Inc. as executive director of medical staff development.
- In June 2002, Blinn received an offer from a Kansas hospital that he understood would allow him to work “until he retired,” with greater responsibility and pay.
- Before deciding, Blinn presented Beatrice’s administrator, Larry Emerson, with a resignation letter and sought assurances about job security.
- Blinn testified Emerson urged him to stay, said he was doing a good job, and stated: “Bob, we’ve got at least five more years of work to do.”
- Blinn also spoke with the board chair, who told him they wanted him to stay and, according to Blinn, assured he could remain employed until retirement.
- Blinn declined the Kansas offer and continued working for Beatrice.
- Approximately six months later, Beatrice terminated Blinn’s employment.
- Blinn sued for breach of contract (asserting a five-year or until-retirement term) and promissory estoppel (asserting reliance by turning down the Kansas job).

## Issues

1. Whether an “employment-until-retirement” theory not pleaded could be treated as tried by implied consent under Nebraska’s Rule 15(b) constructive-amendment doctrine.
2. Whether the employer’s oral assurances were sufficiently definite to modify at-will employment into a contract for a definite term.
3. Whether the same assurances could support promissory estoppel based on reasonable and foreseeable reliance, despite lack of contractual definiteness.

## Decision

- The Nebraska Supreme Court held there was insufficient basis to treat the pleadings as constructively amended to include an unpleaded “employment-until-retirement” theory.
- The court affirmed summary judgment for Beatrice on the breach of contract claim, concluding the statements were too indefinite to create a definite-term employment contract or otherwise alter at-will status.
- The court reversed summary judgment for Beatrice on promissory estoppel, holding genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether Beatrice made a promise on which Blinn reasonably and foreseeably relied by declining the Kansas offer.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings limited to promissory estoppel.

## Legal Principles

- An unpleaded issue is treated as tried by express or implied consent only if the parties recognized the unpleaded issue entered the case; implied consent is not shown where the opposing party did not understand evidence was introduced to prove a new issue.
- At-will employment is not modified into a term contract by employer statements unless the employer makes a clear, definite offer of employment for a definite term and manifests intent to be bound.
- Encouraging or aspirational statements about future work, even referencing a period such as “five years,” may be too indefinite to form an enforceable employment contract.
- Promissory estoppel may apply when a promise induces reasonable and foreseeable reliance, even if the promise lacks the definiteness required for contract formation; disputed facts about promise, reliance, and avoidance of injustice can preclude summary judgment.

## Conclusion

The court rejected an unpleaded until-retirement contract theory, held the employer’s oral assurances were too indefinite to alter at-will employment for purposes of a contract claim, but allowed a promissory estoppel claim to proceed because a fact-finder could conclude the assurances foreseeably induced Blinn to forgo a concrete alternative job opportunity.


Blinn v. Beatrice Cmty. Hosp. & Health Ctr., Inc., 270 Neb. 809, 708 N.W.2d 235 (Neb. 2006)