## Facts

- Kassie Dargo worked as a radio personality in Chicago.
- Clear Channel Communications recruited Dargo for a position at a Clear Channel station in Minneapolis.
- During recruiting discussions, Clear Channel allegedly promised Dargo a higher salary and a two-year employment contract.
- Dargo accepted the offer and, in connection with taking the job, quit her Chicago position.
- Dargo relocated from Chicago to Minneapolis to begin work for Clear Channel.
- Dargo signed a one-year housing lease in Minneapolis.
- After Dargo began working in Minneapolis, she did not receive the promised two-year employment contract.
- Clear Channel terminated Dargo shortly after she started the new position.
- Dargo sued Clear Channel and asserted, among other claims, promissory estoppel based on the alleged promise of a two-year contract and her reliance.
- Clear Channel moved to dismiss the complaint, including the promissory estoppel count.

## Issues

1. Whether a promissory estoppel claim may proceed when the plaintiff’s alleged reliance (quitting a job, relocating, and signing a lease) amounts to consideration supporting the defendant’s alleged promise.

## Decision

- The court granted Clear Channel’s motion to dismiss the promissory estoppel claim.
- The court held that promissory estoppel is not an available theory where the alleged promise is supported by consideration.
- The court treated Dargo’s alleged reliance (relocation and assuming lease obligations to take the job) as the type of bargained-for detriment that constitutes consideration, making promissory estoppel inappropriate on the pleaded facts.

## Legal Principles

- Promissory estoppel generally requires: (1) an unambiguous promise, (2) reliance by the promisee, (3) reliance that the promisor expected or reasonably should have expected, and (4) detriment resulting from the reliance.
- Promissory estoppel functions as an equitable substitute when a promise would otherwise be unenforceable due to the absence of consideration.
- If the plaintiff alleges facts showing an exchange supported by consideration, promissory estoppel is not a proper alternative route to relief.
- A detriment incurred in exchange for a promised benefit—such as relocating for a job and taking on a lease obligation—can qualify as consideration.
- On a motion to dismiss, the court may reject a promissory estoppel theory when the complaint’s own allegations show consideration and therefore take the claim outside promissory estoppel’s role.

## Conclusion

In *Dargo v. Clear Channel Communications, Incorporated*, the court dismissed Dargo’s promissory estoppel claim at the pleading stage because her alleged reliance—quitting her prior job, moving to Minneapolis, and signing a lease—was treated as consideration for the alleged two-year employment promise, leaving promissory estoppel unavailable as a substitute theory.


Dargo v. Clear Channel Communications, Incorporated, 2008 WL 2225812 (2008)