## Facts

- Bobby Wayne Roberts, an oil-drilling worker employed by another company, sought overseas employment with Geosource Drilling Services, Inc.
- Roberts interviewed in Houston with Geosource’s hiring representative, Thomas J. Sturm, who told Roberts he was qualified.
- The same day, Roberts completed hiring steps, including a physical exam, employment paperwork, and signing a written “Drilling Service Employment Agreement,” which provided for at-will employment; Sturm also signed.
- Sturm told Roberts he would depart from Monroe, Louisiana for an overseas assignment in Peru on or about October 14, 1983, and that details would follow in a few days.
- Knowing Roberts still had current employment, Sturm’s assurances led Roberts to resign his existing job.
- A few days later, Sturm told Roberts Geosource would not employ him because it found someone better qualified.
- Roberts sued Geosource and Sturm for anticipatory breach, breach of contract, detrimental reliance (promissory estoppel), wrongful discharge, and fraud.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants on all claims, and Roberts appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether an employer can be liable for breach or anticipatory breach when the written employment agreement created an at-will relationship.
2. Whether promissory estoppel/detrimental reliance can support recovery for quitting prior employment in reliance on an at-will job offer and related start-date assurances.
3. Whether the summary-judgment record raised a genuine issue of material fact on wrongful discharge or fraud based on the rescinded at-will employment offer.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed summary judgment for Geosource and Sturm on all causes of action.
- The at-will employment agreement negated any contractual duty to employ Roberts for a definite term or to commence employment, defeating breach and anticipatory breach claims.
- Promissory estoppel could not be used to impose obligations inconsistent with at-will status where the alleged promises concerned future at-will employment.
- Roberts failed to raise a fact issue supporting wrongful discharge under any recognized exception to at-will employment.
- The fraud claim failed because the record did not show evidence that, when the future-employment statements were made, defendants lacked intent to perform; nonperformance alone was insufficient.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant is entitled to summary judgment if the evidence establishes, as a matter of law, no genuine issue of fact exists as to at least one essential element of the plaintiff’s claim.
- In Texas, at-will employment permits termination (or refusal to begin employment) for good cause, bad cause, or no cause, absent a specific contractual limitation.
- Promissory estoppel generally cannot be used to transform an at-will employment relationship into one requiring employment for a definite term or otherwise restrict the employer’s at-will rights.
- Fraud based on a promise of future performance requires evidence the promisor, at the time of the promise, had no intent to perform; failure to perform, without more, does not establish fraud.
- Wrongful discharge claims are limited in the at-will context and require facts fitting a recognized exception.

## Conclusion

Because the written agreement created an at-will relationship and Roberts did not produce summary-judgment evidence establishing enforceable limits on Geosource’s right not to employ him, the court held there was no contractual liability and rejected promissory estoppel, wrongful discharge, and fraud theories arising from the withdrawn offer.


Roberts v. Geosource Drilling Servs., Inc., 757 S.W.2d 48 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1988)