Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01371/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01371-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Deere & Company
Appellee
Terry Denner
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1371

___________

Terry Denner, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Northern District of Iowa.

*

Deere & Company, * [UNPUBLISHED] 

* 

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: September 16, 2005

Filed: September 21, 2005 

___________

Before BYE, HEANEY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Terry Denner (Denner) appeals the district court's1

 granting of summary

judgment in favor of the defendant, Deere & Company (Deere), arguing the court

erred in its determination Denner failed to establish a clear and definite promise

necessary to establish promissory estoppel under Iowa law. See Schoff v. Combined

Ins. Co. of Am., 604 N.W.2d 43, 49 (Iowa 1999). 

Appellate Case: 05-1371 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/21/2005 Entry ID: 1954338
-2-

Denner asserts Deere, through its employee, Craig Wickham (Wickham),

promised that the prior criminal case against him which had since been closed would

not preclude him from being hired at Deere. Denner relied upon this statement to quit

his former job to his detriment. Denner, however, has provided no evidence

Wickham knew or understood Denner's criminal history involved Deere and/or Deere

equipment.

Upon review of the record, this Court is in accord with the district court that

Schoff controls the case. As in Schoff, Denner has produced no evidence he

disclosed the facts underlying his criminal history, despite the fact the criminal case

related to the theft of Deere equipment. See id. at 51-52 ("[T]he parties did not have

the same knowledge with respect to the nature and extent of Schoff's criminal record.

This ambiguity is crucial because Schoff was not fired because of his criminal record

in general; he was fired because he could not get bonded. . . . ; [] he was not bonded

because he had been charged with felonies and/or had not revealed his criminal

record on his bond application."). As in Schoff, Denner was fired not because of his

criminal record in general, but because he "was the young man that [Deere] pressed

charges against several years ago." (Pl.'s App. at 216.) The Court finds Denner's

attempts to distinguish Schoff unavailing, since Schoff directly speaks to an

employee's failure to disclose information necessary to give a promise clear and

definite meaning.

We agree with the district court any promise Deere may have made to hire

and/or not fire Denner because of the fact of his criminal record does not clearly and

definitely encompass the facts underlying the criminal record, since that information

was not proven by Denner to be known by Wickham prior to making the alleged

promises. 

We therefore affirm the district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1371 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/21/2005 Entry ID: 1954338