Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01309/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01309-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF 

PILED 1s 

APPEALSUoited States U)l.~rt ~f Appea 'fenth Cm:mt 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT AUG 2, 7 1990 

MICHAEL C. ROBERTS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

CONOCO, INC . , 

Defendant-Appellee. 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

) Clerk 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 89-1309 

) (D.C. No. 88-B-1352) 

) ( D. Colo.) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * 

Before SEYMOUR, BRORBY, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App . P . 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

Plaintiff-appellant Michael C. Roberts appeals from an order 

of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of 

defendant-appellee Conoco, Inc. In his complaint, Roberts alleged 

statutory fraud, in violation of Colo. Rev. Stat.§ 8-2-104, in 

that Conoco induced him to leave his employment in Montana and 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-1309 Document: 010110041572 Date Filed: 08/27/1990 Page: 1 
move to Colorado through falsely and deceptively representing the 

nature and length of his employment. Based on the same supporting 

assertion, Roberts alleged common law negligent misrepresentation 

by Conoco. The district court granted summary judgment on the 

statutory fraud claim on the grounds that Conoco's representations 

of the nature of Robert's employment were true, Conoco did not 

promise to employ Roberts for a particular period of time, and 

Roberts failed to prove under section 8-2-104 that Conoco made a 

false representation of a material existing fact or promise to 

perform future acts without the intention to fulfill the promise. 

The district court determined the negligent misrepresentation 

claim failed because Roberts did not prove either a false 

representation by Conoco or that Conoco failed to exercise 

reasonable care as to any of its representations about the nature 

and length of employment. We affirm. 

Roberts was employed by Conoco as a transport driver at 

Conoco's terminal in Great Falls, Montana. In 1985, Conoco 

determined it needed an assistant terminal manager at its Commerce 

City, Colorado, terminal. Douglas Franssen and Barry Garvin, 

employees of Conoco, contacted Roberts and discussed the 

possibility of Roberts assuming the assistant terminal manager 

position in Commerce City. After the discussions, Franssen 

offered Roberts the assistant terminal manager position. Conoco 

represented that Roberts' employment duties would include 

supervising and disciplining personnel, handling crisis 

situations, participating in safety meetings, maintaining trucks, 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-1309 Document: 010110041572 Date Filed: 08/27/1990 Page: 2 
completing administrative paperwork, and scheduling and 

dispatching trucks. 

Before accepting the position, Roberts expressed his concern 

about his future with Conoco. Franssen told Roberts that he could 

expect to be employed as an assistant terminal manager for three 

to four years before being promoted. According to Roberts, he 

then accepted the job based on his understanding that he would be 

trained and that he would be employed for three to four years as 

an assistant terminal manager at Commerce City. His employment 

commenced in August, 1985. Roberts worked on emergency 

situations, called on customers to promote asphalt and industrial 

sales, supervised and disciplined transport drivers, attended 

safety meetings, helped maintain truck safety, coordinated 

schedules and dispatching, and did paperwork. 

By January, 1986, friction had developed between Roberts and 

the transport drivers. According to Roberts, the friction 

developed due to a lack of training and lack of support from 

Joseph Meuren, the terminal manager. Roberts was given a negative 

performance review in January and placed on a three-month 

probation. Roberts maintained he was to be provided training 

during this time. Although Roberts' performance initially 

improved after he was placed on probation, the improvement did not 

last. He was terminated on May 12, 1986, for unsatisfactory 

performance. 

We review the granting of summary judgment ... de 

novo, applying the same standard as the district court. 

Abercrombie v. City of Catoosa, 896 F.2d 1228, 1230 

(10th Cir. 1990). . . . Summary judgment is to be 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-1309 Document: 010110041572 Date Filed: 08/27/1990 Page: 3 
granted if no material issues of fact remain, and the 

moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). We presume all allegations 

reasonably pleaded are true, (and] ... we resolve all 

conflicts in favor of the party resisting the 

motion. . Abercrombie, 896 F.2d at 1230. 

Apodaca v. Rio Arriba County Sheriff's Dep't, 905 F.2d 1445, 1446 

(10th Cir. 1990). 

On appeal, Roberts first argues that the district court erred 

in requiring a scienter element for statutory fraud not found in 

section 8-2-104. Section 8-2-104 provides in part: 

It is unlawful for any ... corporation ... doing business in this state, by itself or its 

agents ... , to induce, influence, persuade, or engage 

workmen to change from one place of employment to 

another in this state, or to bring workmen of any class 

or calling into this state to work in any of the 

departments of labor in this state, through or by means 

of false or deceptive representations ... concerning 

the kind and character of the work to be done .... 

According to Roberts, this statute, contrary to the district 

court's determination, does not include the elements of common law 

fraud. 

The Colorado courts have recognized this statute, see Pittman 

v. Larson Distrib. Co., 724 P.2d 1379, 1386 (Colo. Ct. App. 1986), 

but have not interpreted it. We need not decide in this case, 

however, whether the common law fraud elements are included in 

section 8-2-104. In the complaint, Roberts alleged Conoco 

represented he would be promoted to assistant terminal manager and 

would perform duties as a "Conoco Transportation Public Relations 

and Marketing Representative." The record supports the district 

court's conclusion that Roberts did receive the promotion and 

perform these duties. Also, Roberts alleged Conoco represented 

4 

Appellate Case: 89-1309 Document: 010110041572 Date Filed: 08/27/1990 Page: 4 
Roberts would be employed as an assistant terminal manager for 

three to four years before being promoted, so long as he did a 

satisfactory job. We agree with the district court's conclusion 

that Conoco did not make a promise of guaranteed employment. 

Roberts contends the district court erred in finding that he 

was an employee at will. Rather, Roberts contends an employee at 

will issue should be resolved by a jury. Because, as indicated 

above, there was no promise Roberts would be employed for a 

definite period, there is no issue of fact for a jury to resolve. 

Cf. Justice v. Stanley Aviation Corp., 530 P.2d 984 (Colo. Ct. 

App. 1974). Roberts' individual belief that he would be employed 

for three to four years is insufficient to create a promise. 

Thus, we conclude the district court correctly decided that 

Roberts was an employee at will. 

Roberts also asserts that he did not receive the training he 

was promised. As the district court found and the record 

reflects, Roberts was not promised formal training. 

however, receive some on the job training, but chose not 

advantage of this training to the full extent offered. 

He did, 

to take 

Roberts' final argument is that the district court did not 

view all of the evidence regarding negligent misrepresentation in 

his favor. After reviewing the record on appeal, we conclude the 

district court's determination that Roberts failed to establish a 

genuine issue of material fact as to the elements of negligent 

misrepresentation was correct. 

5 

Appellate Case: 89-1309 Document: 010110041572 Date Filed: 08/27/1990 Page: 5 
The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Colorado is AFFIRMED. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

6 

Appellate Case: 89-1309 Document: 010110041572 Date Filed: 08/27/1990 Page: 6