## Facts

- Michael Cocchiara worked as an automobile salesperson for Lithia from 1997 to October 2005.
- After a major heart attack in 2004, his doctors advised a less stressful job with shorter hours and no weekends.
- Cocchiara discussed alternative positions within Lithia while also pursuing outside employment.
- He received an offer from the Medford *Mail Tribune* that fit his medical restrictions.
- Cocchiara presented evidence that Lithia’s sales manager told him a suitable corporate job at Lithia was available, that he was “too valuable” to lose, and that meeting at corporate the next day was a “mere formality” to complete paperwork.
- Relying on those assurances, Cocchiara declined the *Mail Tribune* offer.
- At the corporate office, Cocchiara was told the meeting was an interview; he was not hired into the promised corporate role.
- Cocchiara could not revive the *Mail Tribune* offer, later obtained other work, and eventually secured a different Lithia corporate job at lower pay.
- Cocchiara sued for promissory estoppel and fraudulent misrepresentation (and initially asserted unlawful employment practices, later dismissed without prejudice).
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants on promissory estoppel and fraud; the Court of Appeals affirmed, reasoning that at-will employment made reliance and future lost wages unavailable as a matter of law.

## Issues

1. Whether the at-will nature of the promised position categorically makes reliance unreasonable for purposes of promissory estoppel.
2. Whether at-will status categorically bars a fraudulent misrepresentation claim based on representations about obtaining the job.
3. Whether at-will status categorically precludes recovery of future lost wages as damages.

## Decision

- The Oregon Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
- The court held that at-will status does not create a conclusive presumption defeating reasonable reliance for promissory estoppel at the summary-judgment stage.
- The court held that at-will status does not categorically defeat fraudulent misrepresentation when the alleged misstatements concern existing facts (e.g., that the job was secured and only paperwork remained).
- The court held that at-will status does not categorically bar future lost wages; the likely duration of employment and amount of loss are questions of proof for the factfinder.
- The court reinstated Cocchiara’s promissory estoppel and fraudulent misrepresentation claims for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- A promise of at-will employment may support promissory estoppel if the promise was sufficiently definite and the promisee’s reliance could be found reasonable under the circumstances.
- Reasonable reliance is generally a fact question when the record permits competing inferences; courts should not impose a per se rule that reliance on an at-will job promise is unreasonable.
- Fraud claims are not barred by at-will status when a plaintiff alleges actionable misrepresentations of present or past fact, intent to induce reliance, actual reliance, and resulting harm.
- Future lost wages are not categorically unavailable for interference with an at-will employment opportunity; a plaintiff may seek such damages by proving, with non-speculative evidence, the probable period of employment and expected earnings.

## Conclusion

The Oregon Supreme Court ruled that the at-will character of a promised job does not, by itself, defeat reliance or damages for promissory estoppel and does not immunize an employer from liability for fraudulent misrepresentation; those questions ordinarily turn on the evidence and are for the factfinder.


Cocchiara v. Lithia Motors, Inc., 353 Or. 282, 297 P.3d 1277 (Or. 2013)