## Facts

- William Greene worked as a maintenance employee in the Grant Building beginning in 1959.
- Greene alleged Grant Building, Inc. promised to employ him “for life” in exchange for his agreement to work for wages below union scale.
- In 1975, Oliver Realty, Inc. assumed management of the building and its president allegedly assured employees that existing employment contracts would be honored.
- Greene told an Oliver supervisor about his claimed lifetime-employment agreement; the supervisor said he would look into it but did not respond.
- Greene continued working until Oliver laid him off in 1983.
- Greene sued for breach of contract based on termination of the alleged lifetime-employment agreement.

## Issues

1. Whether evidence that Greene accepted below-union wages could constitute “additional consideration” sufficient to rebut Pennsylvania’s presumption of at-will employment, making contract formation and intent questions for a jury.
2. Whether the contract’s duration (including any “reasonable time” limitation) presented a fact question that could not be resolved on summary judgment.
3. Whether Greene presented triable facts supporting equitable estoppel based on Oliver’s alleged assurances that existing contracts would be honored.

## Decision

- The Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed the grant of summary judgment for Oliver and remanded.
- The court held the record permitted a reasonable jury to find Greene provided additional consideration by accepting below-union wages in reliance on a promise of lifetime employment.
- The court concluded the trial court improperly resolved disputed inferences and credibility issues against Greene at the summary judgment stage.
- The court determined intent, consideration, duration (including what constitutes a reasonable time), and estoppel were fact-intensive matters for the jury on this record.

## Legal Principles

- Employment in Pennsylvania is presumed at-will; the presumption may be rebutted by clear proof of an intent to contract for a definite or lifetime duration and/or by additional consideration beyond the employee’s services.
- Lifetime-employment agreements are not invalid per se; their enforceability turns on ordinary contract principles, including mutual assent, consideration, and sufficiently definite terms.
- If a contract is otherwise enforceable but omits an essential term such as duration, the law may supply a reasonable term; what is “reasonable” often depends on the facts.
- On summary judgment, courts must view evidence and reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party and may not decide credibility or contested factual questions.

## Conclusion

The court held that Greene’s evidence could support a finding of an enforceable departure from at-will employment and that disputed questions regarding additional consideration, the parties’ intent, duration, and equitable estoppel required jury resolution, making summary judgment improper.


Greene v. Oliver Realty, Inc., 526 A.2d 1192 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1987)