## Facts

- Gordian Ndubizu, an African American professor born in Nigeria, was a long-tenured faculty member in Drexel University’s LeBow College of Business.
- LeBow maintained a hierarchy of faculty titles that included “endowed professor,” and the college had a limited number of endowed professorships.
- Ndubizu alleged the dean promised to appoint him to an endowed professorship.
- Ndubizu claimed he relied on the promise by (1) increasing his scholarly work effort and (2) refraining from pursuing other employment opportunities.
- Ndubizu was not appointed to an endowed professorship; other faculty received endowed chairs.
- Ndubizu sued Drexel and administrators asserting, among other claims, common-law promissory estoppel and fraud.
- Defendants moved for partial summary judgment directed to the promissory estoppel and fraud claims, challenging whether Ndubizu could show legally cognizable detrimental reliance.

## Issues

1. Whether increased scholarly activity undertaken in response to an alleged promise of an endowed chair can, as a matter of law, constitute “detrimental reliance” sufficient for promissory estoppel and fraud.
2. Whether forbearance from pursuing other employment opportunities in reliance on the alleged promise can constitute “detrimental reliance” sufficient for promissory estoppel and fraud, or instead fails as a matter of law at summary judgment.

## Decision

- The court granted partial summary judgment to defendants on promissory estoppel and fraud to the extent the alleged reliance was Ndubizu’s increased scholarly activities.
- The court denied partial summary judgment to defendants on promissory estoppel and fraud to the extent the alleged reliance was Ndubizu’s forbearance of other employment opportunities.
- The court held there was a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Ndubizu actually refrained from pursuing other positions because of the alleged promise.

## Legal Principles

- Promissory estoppel and fraud theories predicated on reliance require a showing of legally cognizable detriment caused by the alleged promise or misrepresentation.
- Efforts that primarily confer professional benefit on the plaintiff—such as increased scholarly productivity that enhances reputation and career prospects—may be insufficient as a matter of law to qualify as detrimental reliance.
- Forbearance from seeking or pursuing other employment opportunities can constitute detrimental reliance and may defeat summary judgment when supported by record evidence.
- On summary judgment, courts may decide as a legal question whether a category of alleged reliance can ever be “detrimental,” while leaving disputed factual questions of actual reliance and causation to the factfinder.

## Conclusion

The court narrowed the case by dismissing promissory estoppel and fraud theories based on Ndubizu’s increased scholarly work, but allowed those claims to proceed insofar as they rested on his alleged decision to forgo other employment opportunities in reliance on a promised endowed professorship.


Ndubizu v. Drexel Univ., 768 F. Supp. 2d 796 (E.D. Pa. 2011)