## Facts

- Dennis D. Reimer, a Missouri wholesale foods salesperson earning $350 per week, was recruited by Badger Wholesale Company, Inc. for a sales position in Wisconsin.
- Badger’s offer included a minimum-wage base plus commission, an exclusive Neenah–Menasha territory with an opportunity to expand into Oshkosh, and a ninety-day period to reach $10,000 in sales, with projected annual earnings of $20,000–$25,000.
- Reimer accepted, quit his Missouri job, moved his family to Wisconsin, and incurred moving expenses slightly over $2,000.
- After starting work, Reimer learned the territory was not exclusive because other representatives already handled 26 accounts in the area.
- When Reimer pursued Oshkosh expansion, Badger imposed a delivery minimum that required Reimer to make deliveries himself if the threshold was not met.
- Badger terminated Reimer after about 17.5 working days for lack of sales, though he made 13 sales; expert testimony characterized this performance as strong for new territory.
- Reimer sued alleging breach of contract, misrepresentation, promissory estoppel, and wrongful dismissal; promissory estoppel and wrongful dismissal were dismissed, and Reimer proceeded on breach of contract.
- The jury found Badger breached the agreement and awarded $16,500 in damages; Badger moved for a new trial and appealed after denial.

## Issues

1. Whether an at-will employee may maintain a breach of contract claim based on employer promises that are independent of the duration of employment.
2. What measure of damages applies when an employer breaches such non-duration promises after inducing the employee to leave prior employment and relocate.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Court of Appeals held that Reimer could sue for breach of contract notwithstanding at-will employment because the breach concerned promises unrelated to employment duration.
- The court upheld the trial court’s damages methodology but concluded the evidence supported only $16,245.81, not $16,500.
- The judgment was modified to $16,245.81 and affirmed as modified; the order denying a new trial was affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- The at-will employment doctrine bars claims premised on a right to continued employment absent a definite term, but it does not bar breach of contract claims based on independent, bargained-for employment terms.
- Employer promises concerning job conditions (e.g., territory, sales opportunities, trial-period conditions, compensation structure) can be enforceable contractual commitments even when the employee remains terminable at will.
- Contract damages may protect the expectation interest and can include losses proximately caused by the breach that were reasonably foreseeable at contracting, including foregone earnings from leaving prior employment and relocation-related expenses.
- Appellate review may sustain the damages theory while reducing the award to the maximum amount supported by credible evidence.

## Conclusion

The court ruled that at-will status did not preclude Reimer’s contract claim because Badger’s breach involved non-duration job promises, and it affirmed liability while reducing the award to the amount supported by the trial evidence.


Reimer v. Badger Wholesale Co., Inc., 147 Wis. 2d 389, 433 N.W.2d 592 (Wis. Ct. App. 1988)