Filed: March 7 , 2013

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON

MICHAEL COCCHIARA, Petitioner on Review,

v.
LITHIA MOTORS, INC.; and LITHIA MOTORS SUPPORT SERVICES, INC., Respondents on Review
,
and
LITHIA DM, INC., dba Lithia Chrysler Jeep Dodge, Defendant.

(CC 06

- 2731

- L7; CA A146452; SC S060100)

En Banc
On review from the Court of Appeals.*
Argued and submitted November 8, 2012; resubmitted January 7, 2013.
G. Jefferson Campbell, Jr., Medford, argued the cause and filed the brief for petitioner on review.
Ryan J. Vanderhoof of Hornecker, Cowling, Hassen & Heysell, LLP, Medford, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondents on review. With him on the brief was Eric B. Mitton.
Shenoa L. Payne of Haglund, Kelley, Jones & Wilder, LLP, Portland, filed the brief for amicus curiae Oregon Trial Lawyers Association.

BALMER, C. J.
The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed. The judgment of the ci rcuit court is reversed, and the case is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings.*Appeal from Jackson County Circuit Court,

Ronald D. Grensky, Judge. 

### 247 Or App 545, 270 P3d 350 (2011).1 BALMER, C. J. 1

In this employment case we must determine whether a prospective 2
employee may bring a promissory estoppel claim or a fraudulent misrepresentation claim 3

based on an employer's representations regarding a job that is terminable at will

. Plaintiff 4

worked as a sales person for defendant 1 for nearly eight years before he had a heart attack 5
that required him to seek a less stressful job. In relianc e on his manager 's promise that 6
plaintiff had been given a new "corporate" job with defendant th at would meet his health 7

n eeds, plaintiff turned down a job with a different employer . Ultimately, defendant did 8

not hire plaintiff for the corporate job, and plaintiff subsequently had to take job s that 9
paid less than the corporate job with defendant or less than the position that he had turned 10

down. P laintiff brought this action against defendant claiming promissory estoppel, 11
fraudulent misrepresentation, and unlawful employment practices, including employment 12
discrimination. The trial court granted partial summary judgment for defendant

-- on the 13
promissory estoppel and frau dulent misrepresentation claims

-- and plaintiff dismissed 14

the unlawful employment practices claim without prejudice. The Court of Appeals 15

affirmed, hold ing that
, because the cor porate job wa s terminable at will, plaintiff could 16

not reasonably rely on the promise of employment or recover future lost wages

. 17

1 Plaintiff named his former employer, Lithia Motors Support Services, Inc., and its parent company, Lithia Motors, Inc., as defendants. For convenience, we refer to them collectively as defendant. Plaintiff noted in his amended complaint that he did not b ecome an employee of Lithia Motors Support Services, Inc. until 2000, but it appears that, prior to that time, plaintiff was employed by another subsidiary of Lithia Motors, Inc.2

Cocchiara v. Lithia Motors, Inc. , 247 Or App 545, 270 P3d 350 (2011). For the reasons 1

that follow, we reverse the decision o f the Court of Appeals. 2

FACTS 3
We state the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff because the trial 4

court granted defendant ' s motion for partial summary judgment

. Petock v. Asante , 351 5
Or 408, 411 n 1, 268 P3d 579 (2011) (stating standard). Pl aintiff worked as a sales person 6
at a Lithia Dodge dealership from 1997 to October 2005. Following a major heart attack 7

in 2004
, plaintiff's doctors recommended that he find a less stressful job that would allow 8

him to work shorter hours and avoid working on the weekends. Plaintiff discussed tho se 9

needs with Summers, his General Sales Manager at the dealership, but he also pur sued 10
other employment because his sales job could not meet his health needs

. 11
Plaintiff received an offer to be a sales represe ntative for the Medford Mail 12

Tribune, a position that satisfied his health requirements

. P laintiff went to Summers to 13

tell him that he planned to take the Medford Mail Tribune job, and he told Summers that 14
that job would be less stressful and would provid e compensation that was comparable to 15
his current position

. Summers responded that plaintiff should not accept the Medford 16
Mail Tribune position because he was "too valuable" to defendant

. Summers then told 17
plaintiff that there was a new "corporate" job available with defendant that would meet 18

his health needs. 19

After placing a call to defendant ' s corporate offices, Summers advised 20
plaintiff that he had been given the corporate position and that he would be contacted the 21
next day to come in to finalize the paperwork. P laintiff then asked Summer s to confirm 223

that the offer was definite , given plaintiff's outstanding offer from the Medford Mail 1

Tribune. Summers confirmed that plaintiff had been given the job and that the meeting 2
the next day was a "mere formality." Plaintiff acknowledges that there was no discussion 3

as to whether or not the corporate job would be terminable at will

. After his discussion 4

with Summers , plaintiff told the Medford Mail Tribune that he had decided not to accept 5

its offer because he had received another job with defendant

. 6
When plaintiff met with one of defendant ' s representatives the next day, the 7
representative told plaintiff that he had not been hired for the corporate job. Instead, the 8
representative was meet ing with plaintiff to interview him as one possible candidate for 9

the corporate job. Ultimately, d efendant did not hire plaintiff for that job . When plaintiff 10

then tried to accept the Medford Mail Tribune ' s prior job offer , that job had been filled. 11

Pla intiff later accepted a different sales representative job with the Medford Mail 12

Tribune, but the job paid less than the previously offered job at the Medford Mail 13

Tribune . Plaintiff subsequently accepted yet another job that paid less than the promised 14
corporate job with defendant

. 15

As noted, plaintiff brought this action against defendant on a theory of 16
promissory estoppel, fraudulent misrepresentation, and unlawful employment practices, 17
including employment discrimination under ORS 659A.112. 2 As p art of his claim for 18

2 ORS 659A.112 was amended in 2007 and 2009. See Or Laws 2007, ch 70, § 29 1; Or Laws 2009, ch 508, § 6. However, because we do not address plaintiff's claim under ORS 659A.112, we need not consider the impact of those amendments. Therefore, all references to ORS 659A.112 are to the 2011 version of the statute.4

damages, p laintiff sought economic damages for the income that he would have earned in 1

the c orporate job with defendant

. Defendant filed a motion for partial summary 2
judgment, arguing that, because the corporate job was an at

- will pos ition that defendant 3
could have fired plaintiff from at any time, plaintiff had no reasonable basis to rely on the 4
corporate job offer , as required for both the promissory estoppel and fraud ulent 5
misrepresentation claims

. Moreover, defendant argued, it wo uld be illogical to hold 6
defendant liable for damages that plaintiff would have be en unable to recover had he 7
been terminated on his first day. The trial court granted summary judgment on th e 8
promissory estoppel and fraudulent misrepresentation claims, no ting that
, even if plaintiff 9

had relied on all the statements that Summers allegedly had made, plaintiff would lose 10
"[b]ecause they didn't tell him you got a job for the rest of your life 11 here

. * * * He didn't rely on having a job for more tha [ n ] a day 12 because * * * nobody said to him, and you're going to have this job for X 13 amount of days, months, or years. * * * [H]e couldn't rely on something 14 that was never said to him." 15

Plaintiff dismissed his unlawful employment practices claim without pr ejudice and 16
appealed , arguing that the trial court erred in grant ing defendant ' s motion for partial 17
summary judgment

. 18
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed, relying in large part on its prior 19

decision in Slate v. Saxon, Marquoit, Bertoni & Todd , 166 Or App 1 , 999 P2d 1152
, rev 20

den , 330 Or 375 (2000) . The Court of Appeals began by summarizing the Slate decision: 21
"The plaintiff in Slate had been a law clerk at the defendant law firm, which 22 offered him a position as an associate attorney, condition ed on the plaintiff 23 passing the Oregon bar examination and on the defendants' renewal of 24 some juvenile and indigent

- defense contracts. Those conditions later were 25 met, yet the 'defendants advised plaintiff that they were terminating the 265

planned employment a rrangement, although plaintiff had not yet begun 1 working for them.' The plaintiff sued for breach of contract and promissory 2 estoppel, claiming damages associated with having taken the bar 3 examination in Oregon, instead of in another jurisdiction, and wit h having 4 not sought alternative employment. The trial court granted summary 5 judgment to the defendants, and we affirmed. 6

" Our holding in Slate turned on the at

- will nature of the employment 7 that the defenda nts had offered the plaintiff. * * * We * * * he ld, for two 8 reasons, that the trial court correctly had granted the defendants' motion for 9 summary judgment on the plaintiff's promissory

- estoppel claim. First, 10 because the promised employment was at will, 'there could have been no 11 reasonable basis for re liance on' that promise. In other words, the plaintiff 12 could not reasonably have understood that the promised employment 13 would last for any particular length of time. Second, any monetary losses 14 that the plaintiff experience d were not 'attributable to th e promise [of 15 employment] per se .' That is, the plaintiff would have experienced the 16 same losses if the defendants had hired him, but had 'discharged [him] 17 immediately after he came to work rather than before.' Because the 18 plaintiff could not have recove red damages for being terminated from the 19 at

- will job, he also could not have recovered damages from not having been 20 hired into that position." 21

Cocchiara , 247 Or App at 549

- 50 ( bracketed alterations in Cocchiara ; emphasis in 22
original ; internal citations to Slate omitted)

. 23
Noting that the corporate job in this case was also an at

- will job
, the Court 24
of Appeals applied the reasoning from Slate that "' [i] t is circular and not based on reality 25

to argue , as [the plaintiff] does, that either his reliance or his change in position was 26
attributable to the promise of at will employment rather than the at will employment 27

contract itself. ' " Id. at 551 ( alterations added; quoting Slate , 166 Or App at 7). The 28
court reasoned that plaintiff "could not reasonably rely on defendant['s] statements as 29
having promised anything other than at

- will employment," from which he could have 30
been fired at any time. Id. at 550

- 51. In addition, the court noted that plaintiff had 316

claimed damages associated with not be ing hired for the corpor ate job, but had not 1
claimed damages associated with turning down the original sales representative job with 2

the Medford Mail Tribune. Id. at 551. The court stated: 3

" Slate is based largely on the plaintiff's inability to prove tha t he suffered 4 any damages from the defendants' breach of a promise to give him at

- will 5 employment. Our holding here similarly is based on our conclusion that 6 plaintiff has not alleged any claim for damages that fairly can be said to 7 spring from defendant [ 's] failure to give him the corporate job; as a matter 8 of law, plaintiff could not prove any entitlement to lost wages from that job, 9 as defendant [] could have fired him from it at any time." 10

Id. at 554. Based on that reasoning, the Court of Appeals agree d that plaintiff could not 11
succeed on his promissory estoppel claim. Id. at 551. 12

Furthermore , the Court of Appeals determined that the rationale in Slate 13
was not limited to promissory estoppel claims, contrary to what plaintiff urged, because 14
fraudulent misrepresentations claims, like promissory estoppel claims, require proof of 15
reasonable reliance and damages. Id. at 551

- 52. The court, therefore, determined that 16
plain tiff could not recover on his claim for fraudulen t misrepresentation "[f]or the same 17

reason that defendant ['s] promise to hire plaintiff into the corporate job cannot subject 18
them to liability on a promissory

- estoppel theory under Slate [.]" 3 Id. at 552. 19

3 The Court of Appeals also rejected plaintiff's alternative argument that the corporate job was offered to accommodate plaintiff's health condition, pursuant to ORS 659A.112, and therefore was no longer terminable at will. Cocchiara , 247 Or App at 554

- 56. Plaintiff r enews essentially that same argument on review, but, as explained more fully below, we hold that plaintiff is not barred from bringing a promissory estoppel or fraudulent misrepresentation claim solely because the corporate job was terminable at will. For that reason, we do not reach plaintiff's alternative argument regarding ORS 659A.112 and its effect on the at

- will nature of the corporate job.7 On review, plaintiff renews his argument that a prospective employee can 1
bring both promissory estoppel and fraudulent misrepresentation claims in the context of 2

at

- will employment. Plaintiff asserts that Slate was i ncorrectly decided because it 3
ignored the reality that prospective employees often rely on offers of at

- will employment 4
and that employers expect prospective employees to rely on those offers

. Plaintiff argues 5
that barring promissory estoppel claims entirely in the context of at

- will employment is 6
poor public policy and that the issue of re asonable reliance should instead be determined 7
by a jury. Moreover, plaintiff argues, Slate is distinguishable on its facts. 8

Plaintiff further asserts that Slate should not apply to claims for fraudulent 9
misrepresentation
, and he cites two Ninth Circuit decisions interpreting Oregon law 10
regarding fraudulent misrepresentation in support of his position

. In both of those cases, 11

the federal court allowed plaintiffs who had been offered at

- will employment to bring 12
claims for fraudulent misrepresentation bas ed on statements made by their prospective 13
employers during the hiring process

. Arboireau v. Adidas

- Salomon AG , 347 F3d 1158 14
(9th Cir 2003) (employee terminated seven months into at

- will job due t o relocation of 15
job overseas could survive summary judgment on fraudulent misrepresentation claim due 16
to employer's failure during hiring to disclose likelihood that job might be relocate d ); 17
Meade v. Cedarapids, Inc. , 164 F3d 1218 (9th Cir 1999) ( employer's false statements 18
during hiring regarding employer growth provided basis for at

- will employees to survive 19
summary judgment on fraudulent misrepresentation claim after employer's plant closed ). 20
Defendant respond s that allowing promissory estoppel and fraudulent 21
misrepresentation claims in the context of at

- wil l employment, as plain tiff proposes, 228

would create "drastic exceptions" to the at

- will employment doctrine that would render it 1
meaningless. Defendant argue s that this court should instead adopt the holding from 2

Slate and other jurisdictions that a prospec tive employee cannot reasonably rely on an 3

offer of at

- will employment. A contrary holding , defendant argue s , would create an 4
unworkable rule regarding how long an employer would have to employ new hires. 5
Moreover, defendant suggests, employees can avoid the result faced by plaintiff in this 6
case by entering into employment contracts that remove the at

- will presumption. 7
Alternatively, defendant argues that
, even if plaintiff could reasonably rely on the offer of 8
employment in this case, he still loses be cause (1) he did not plead damages associated 9
with turning down the job with the Medford Mail Tribune , and (2) he is not entitled to 10
damages resulting from not being hired for the corporate job because defendant could 11
have fired him at any time. 12

AT

- WILL E MPLOYMENT DOCTRINE 13
Both parties agree that, in Oregon , "the general rule is that an employer 14
may discharge an employee at any time and for any reason, absent a contractual, 15
statutory, or constitutional requirement to the contrary." Washburn v. Columbia Forest 16

Products, Inc. , 340 Or 469, 475, 134 P3d 161 (2006). The focus of the at

- will 17
employment doctrine is on termination: B oth the employer and the employee have a 18
right to terminate the employment relationship for any reason or for no reason without 19

l iability. Samuel Williston & Richard A. Lord, 1 A Treatise on the Law of Contracts § 20

4:23 , 722 (4th ed 2007 ) (noting that the at

- will employment doctrine "eventually was 21
adopted by the majority of American courts which accepted the notion that it provided 229

each party to the employment at

- will relationship with a right of termination")

. As a 1

result, when employment is at will, t ypically, neither party can expect the employment to 2
continue for any specified period of time. See Sheets v. Knight , 308 Or 220, 234 n 13, 3

779 P2d 1000 (1989), abrogated on other grounds by McGanty v. Staudenraus , 321 Or 4

532, 901 P2d 841 (1995) ("Because at

- will employees may be fired at any time and for 5
any reason, they have no reasonable expectation of continued employment

. " (Emp hasis 6

added

. )). 7
Perhaps because the at

- will employment doctrine focuses on termination, 8
courts have disagreed regarding the significance of the at

- will nature of employment 9
before employment begins. In particular, courts have disagreed whether it is reasonable 10
to rely on an offer of at

- will employment, which in turn affect s whether an employer's 11

termination of an at

- will employment agreement before the employee begins working is 12

actionable under a theory of promissory estoppel or fraudu lent misrepresentation

. See 13

Slate
, 166 Or App at 5 (so noting as to promissory estoppel ) ; P.G. Guthrie, Annotation, 14
Employer's Misrepresentation as to Prospect, or Duration, of Employment as Actionable 15

Fraud , 24 ALR 3d 1412 (1969) (last updated 2009) (com piling fraud cases)

. Compare 16
Grouse v. Group Health Plan, Inc.
, 306 NW2d 114, 115

- 16 (Minn 1981) ( allowing claim 17
for promissory estoppel where employer revoked offer of at

- will employment after 18
plaintiff resigned other employment and turned down other job offer in reliance on 19
employer's offer )
, with White v. Roche Biomedical Laboratories, Inc.
, 807 F Supp 1212, 20

1219

- 20 (DSC 1992), aff'd , 998 F2d 1011 (4th Cir 1993) (" [R]eliance on a promise 21
consisting solely of at

- will employment is unreasonable as a matte r of law since such a 2210

promise creates no enforceable rights in favor of the employee other than the right to 1
collect wages accrued for work performed. " ). We turn now to those claims for relief 2
under Oregon law. 3

PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL 4
Oregon has adopted the Restatement formulation of promissory estoppel: 5
"A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action 6 or forbearance on the part of the promise e or a third person and which does 7 induce such action or forbearance is binding if injustice can be avoided 8 only by enforcement of the promise. The remedy granted for breach may 9 be limited as justice requires." 10
Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 90(1) (1981); see Schafer et al v. Fraser et ux , 206 11

Or 446, 468

- 69
, 471

- 72, 290 P2d 190 (1955) (quoting with approval Restatement of the 12

Law of Contracts § 90 ( 1932 )). 4 The Restatement (Second) comments clarify that the 13
requirement that enforcement be necessary to avoid injustice "may depend on the 14

reasonable ness of the promisee's r eliance , [and] on its definite and substantial character in 15
relation to the remedy sought," among other things. Restatement (Second) § 90 comment 16

b. 17

4 In Schafer , this court adopted the formulation of promissory estoppel in section 90 of Restatement of the La w of Contracts (1932). 206 Or at 468

- 69, 471

- 72. We quote section 90 of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts here because "most of the elements that must be established in order for a plaintiff to successfully plead and prove an offensive action based o n promissory estoppel * * * are similar or even identical under both Restatements." Samuel Williston & Richard A. Lord , 4 A Treatise on the Law of Contracts § 8:7, 138 (4th ed 2008). Moreover, although there are differences between the two Restatements, id. , this court has applied the Restatement (Second) of Contracts in other cases. See, e.g.
, Caba v. Barker , 341 Or 534, 540, 145 P3d 174 (2006) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Contracts ).11 Nothing in our case law or the Restatement (Second) sugge sts that a 1
promisee's reliance is per se unreasonable if the underlying promise is for a contract that 2

is terminable at will. Even Slate , on which defendant rel ies , does not foreclose a 3
promissory estoppel claim in all cases of at

- will employment. See 166 Or App at 7 4
("Assuming that promissory estoppel ever could provide a basis for recovery under 5
circumstances of this g eneral kind, it cannot here." (I nternal citation omitted

. )). Far from 6
foreclosing such a claim , t he Restatement (Second) provides the following illustration in 7
the section on pr omissory estoppel : 8
"A applies to B, a distributor of radios manufactured by C, for a 9 'dealer franchise' to sell C's products. Such franchises are revocable at will. 10 B erroneously informs A that C has accepted the application and will soon 11 award the fran chise, that A can proceed to employ salesmen and solicit 12 orders, and that A will receive an initial delivery of at least 30 radios. A 13 expends $1,150 in preparing to do business, but does not receive the 14 franchise or any radios. B is liable to A for the $ 1,150 but not for the lost 15 profit on 30 radios." 16

Restatement (Second) § 90 comment d
, illustration 8. Similarly to that illustration, in this 17

case Summers erroneously informed plaintiff that he had been given a job (that was 18

terminable at will) and told h im that he should turn down the position with the Medford 19

Mail Tribune

. The Restatement (Second) illustration indicates that the at

- will nature of 20

an underlying promise of employment does not bar a claim based on promissory estoppel, 21
even if it might limi t the nature of the damages available in some cases

. 22

The Restatement (Second) approach is sound. A n employer ' s legal right to 23
fire an employee at any time and for any reason absent contrary contractual, statutory
, or 24
constitutional requirements does not carry with it a conclusive presumption that the 2512

employer will exercise that right. See Tadsen v. Praegitzer Industries, Inc. , 324 Or 465, 1
471, 928 P2d 980 (1996) (rejecting the premise in a wrongful discharge case that "an 2
employer should enjoy a conclusive presumption that, had it not discharged the employee 3
illegally, it would have discharged him or her lawfully at any time after it in fact did so 4
unlawfully"). Absent that presumption, it may be reasonable for an employee to rely on a 5
promise o f employment
, because the employee may have reason to believe that the 6
employer's right to terminate at will not be exercised before the employee begins work

. 7
Particularly where, as here, the employee has had a lengthy employment relationship with 8
his emp loyer, and the employer asserts the employee's value to the company, it may be 9

reasonable for the employee to rely on the promise of employment , even though the job is 10

terminable at will

. We caution, however, that reasonableness is an issue for the jury
, 11
considering all the relevant circumstances. See Schafer , 206 Or at 481 (noting that issue 12

of reliance in promissory estoppel claim " presented a question for the jury " ). 13

T he Court of Appeals stated that "'[i]t is circular and not based on reality to 14

ar gue, as [ the plaintiff] does, that either his reliance or his change in position was 15
attributable to the promise of at will employment rather than the at will employment 16

contract itself.'" Cocchiara , 247 Or App at 551 (quoting Slate , 166 Or App at 7). In 17

Slate , the court went on to clarify that no injustice would be avoided by allowing a party 18

to recover for revocation of a promise of employment when the same party would not be 19

entitled to recover for the " termination of the consummated contract." Slate
, 166 Or App 20

at 8. That is similar to the argument that defendant makes

-- and that we reject

-- in this 21
case. Although an employer has a right to fire an at

- will employee

-- though not for an 2213

unlawful reason

-- without liability, the fact that the employ er has that right does not 1
mean that a prospective employee can never reasonably rely on a promise of at

- will 2
employment. And i f a prospective employee does reasonably rel y on such a promise, a 3
remedy may be necessary to avoid injustice. 4

In addition to chall enging the reasonableness of plaintiff's reliance in the 5

context of a n at

- will job, defendant argue s that plaintiff cannot survive summary 6
judgment because plaintiff did not plead damages associated with the job that he turned 7

down at the Medford Mail Tribune , and plaintiff is not entitled to recover damages 8
associated with the corporate job because he could have been fired from that job at any 9

time. In response, plaintiff asserts that a decision in this case should not turn on the type 10

of damages tha t were or were not alleged because the motion for partial summary 11
judgment was not focused on damages, and that, at least in the context of p romissory 12
estoppel, plaintiff would be entitled to damages associated with the loss of the corporate 13
job if he prov ed the necessary elements of that claim

. As noted, the Court of Appeals 14
agreed with defendant : 15
"Our holding here * * * is based on our conclusion that plaintiff has not 16 alleged any claim for damages that fairly can be said to spring from 17 defendant [' s ] f ailure to give him the corporate job; as a matter of law, 18 plaintiff could not prove any entitlement to lost wages from that job, as 19 defendant [] could have fired him from it at any time ." 20

Cocchiara , 247 Or App at 55 4 (emphasis added ). 21

At the outset, we note that defendant does not argue, nor d id the Court of 22
Appeals conclude, that , in general, damages associated with the corporate job could not 23
be recovered in an action for promissory estoppel (or fraudulent misrepresentation)

. 2414

Instead, both defendant and the Court of Appeals rel ied on Slate for the proposition that 1

the at

- will nature of the corporate job precluded plaintiff from recovering lost wages for 2
that job. However, this court has rejected a similar proposition in a wrongful discharge 3

case. In Tadsen , 324 Or 465, a jury awarded front pay to an at

- will employee who had 4
alleged unlawful employment practices, including wrongful discharge, and this court 5

affirmed the trial court' s denial of a motion to strike the claim for front pay

. 5 In that case, 6
the employer had argued that an at

- will employee cannot recover front pay because the 7
employee has no "'right' to, or assurance of" future employment. Tadsen , 324 Or at 470

- 8
71. This court rejected that argument: 9

"We decline to hold that an at

- will employee never can prove the requisite 10 facts f

or an award of front pay. The fact that at

- will employment may be 11 terminated for any nondiscriminatory purpose does not necessarily mean 12 that the likely duration of that employment is incapable of proof to the 13 required degree of certainty. At

- will employment may be a factor that 14 bears on whether the proof is sufficient in a particular case, but the right to 15 terminate someone's employment does not establish as a matter of law that 16 an employee cannot prove the existence of front pay damages ." 17

Id. at 471 (emphasis added)

. 18
Similarly, in this case, the fact that the corporate job was terminable at will
, 19
standing alone, does not create a conclusive presumption that plaintiff cannot prove 20
damages related to the loss of that job. Instead, as in Tadsen , plaintiff may seek to prove 21

what he would have earned in the corporate job and how long he likely would have 22

5 The court in Tadsen explained that "front pay" is "a short hand term frequently used in federal courts and administrative agencies to refer to future lost pay and benefits." 324 Or at 467 n 5.15

remained in that job had he been hired as promised and allowed to start work

. Although 1
it may be easier for a plaintiff to prove the likely duration of employment in a wrongful 2
discharge case, where the employee has a history of employment with the employer, a 3
plaintiff is entitled to attempt to make such a showing outside the wrongful discharge 4

c ontext. Of course, if an employer lawfully fires an employee after the employee has 5
started work, which could include firing the employee for no reason at all under the at

6
will employment doctrine, the employee will not be able to show that the job would have 7
continued beyond that point. In this case, however, plaintiff was not allowed to start the 8
corporate job ; indeed, the employer told him that he had never actually been hired for that 9
job, making it difficult for the employer to argue that plaintiff w as lawfully fired . Th us , 10

the general principle from Tadsen applies in this case: T he at

- will nature of the 11
employment does not foreclose plaintiff from attempting to prove the likely duration of 12
employment had he been hired as promised and allowed to sta rt work , although "[a]t

- will 13
employment may be a factor that bears on whether the proof is sufficient in a particular 14

case[

. ]" Id. Whether plaintiff is ultimately entitled to recover damages associated with 15
not being hired for the corporate job, and in w hat amount, is not before this court. 16

Nonetheless, defendant is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law solely because the 17
corporate job was terminable at will. 18
We recognize that allowing a prospective employee to bring a promissory 19
estoppel clai m raises practical concerns that the Court of Appeals articulated in Slate : "It 20

would serve the interests of no one

-- least of all new professional persons in search of 21

work

-- to discourage putative employers from discharging them earlier rather than la ter, 2216

under circumstances where there is no possibility that an actual employment relationship 1
will ever exist." 166 Or App at 5

- 6. On the other hand, as the Eighth Circuit has 2
recognized : 3
"[I]f damages sustained in reasonable reliance on an employer pro mise 4 were not available, the effect of such a rule would be to allow the employer 5 to take advantage of whatever benefits might accrue to him by his inducing 6 a potential employee to leave behind home and/or steady employment 7 while at the same time being com pletely free of any obligation to keep his 8 word." 9

Bower v. AT & T

, Technologies, Inc.
, 852 F2d 361, 364 (8th Cir 1988)

. Moreover, a rule 10
barring a promissory estoppel (or fraudulent misrepresentation) claim would allow an 11
employer to abuse its ability to induce the reliance of prospective employees. For 12
example, an employer could promise an at

- will job to multiple people to keep them 13

available while the employer continue d to vet them or to prevent them from accepting a 14
position with a competitor

. A cknowledging the possibility of reasonable reliance 15
"encourages employers [and employees] to take [their] promises seriously, " i d. , and, 16
more importantly, is consistent with the law of promissory estoppel. 17

FRAUDULENT MISREPRE SENTATION 18

This court has previously articulated the elements of a common law fraud 19

claim , also known as an action in deceit, in more than one way , which is not surprising 20

because "fra ud " is " ' a term so vague that it requires d efinition in nearly every case. ' " 21

Ril ey Hill General Contractor v. Tandy Corp

. , 303 Or 390, 405, 737 P2d 595 (1987) 22
(quoting W. Page Keeton, et al.
, Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts § 105, 727 ( W. 23
Page Keeton ed., 5th ed 1984)). For purposes of this case , two elements that are 2417

consistently required for a fraud claim are relevant : justifiable reliance and damages. 1
See Riley Hill General Contractor , 303 Or at 405 (listing five elements of action in 2
deceit, including " ' [j]ustifiable reliance upon the representation ' " and " ' [ d]amage to the 3
plaintif

f, resulting from such reliance ' " (q uoting Keeton, Prosser and Keeton on the Law 4

of Torts § 105 at 728 ) ); U

. S

. National Bank v. Fought , 291 Or 201, 220

- 21, 630 P2d 337 5
(1981) (listing nine elements of an action in deceit, including " ' reliance on [ the 6
misrepresentation ' s] truth, ' " a " ' right to rely thereon, ' " and " ' consequent and proximate 7
injury ' " (quoting Conzelmann v. N

. W

. P

. & D . Prod. Co

. , 190 Or 332, 350, 225 P2d 757 8

(1950)) ). 9
As noted, the Court of Appeals rejected plaintiff ' s fraud claim because the 10

court determined that plaintiff could not prove the elements of justifiable reliance and 11
damages. The court noted that the " alleged misrepresentations * * * si mply mirror the 12
alleged promise"

-- that plaintiff had been given the corporate job

-- and the court had 13
already held both that plaintiff could not reasonably rely on that promise and that plaintiff 14
was not entitled to any damages associated with that promise

. Cocchiara , 247 Or App at 15

5 50

- 52. Thus, the reasoning the court applied to the claim for promissory estoppel 16
similarly applied to the claim for fraudulent misrepresentation. 17

A s with our analysis above of the promissory estoppel claim , we disagree 18
with the Court of Appeals that , for purposes of his fraud cl aim, plaintiff could not 19
reasonably rely on defendant ' s statement that plaintiff had definitely been given the 20
corporate job. In a fraud claim , " [ t ] he principal argument in support of some such 21
requirement as justifiability of reliance would seem to be that of providing some 2218

objective corroboration to plaintiff's claim that he did rely. * * * [T]he foolish nature of 1
the plaintiff's conduct if he did r ely is relevant primarily because of the likelihood that he 2
did not rely." Keeton
, Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts §108 at 749

- 50. In this 3
case, a jury could find that plaintiff reasonably relied on defendant ' s promise
, because a 4
jury could find t hat he was planning to accept the job with the Medford Mail Tribune

-- 5
as evidenced by plaintiff notifying Summers that he planned to take that job

-- until 6
defendant offered him the corporate job. 7

More over , the standard for reasonable or justifiable r eliance in the context 8
of fraud is both subjective and objective: 9
"If he is a person of normal intelligence, experience and education, he may 10 not put faith in representations which any such normal person would 11 recognize at once as preposterous * * * or whi ch are shown by facts within 12 his observation to be so patently and obviously false that he must have 13 closed his eyes to avoid discovery of the truth, and still compel the 14 defendant to be responsible for his loss. 15

" * * * * * 16

" [T]he matter seems to turn u pon an individual standard of the 17 plaintiff's own capacity and the knowledge which he has, or which may 18 fairly be charged against him from the facts within his observation in the 19 light of his individual case[.]" 20

Keeton, Prosser and Keeton on the Law of To rts § 108 at 750

- 51 (footnote omitted)

. 21

" Normal " people rely on offers of at

- will employment every day , or at least a jury would 22
be entitled to so find, based on the facts in a particular case

. Here , a jury could find that 23
plaintiff's reliance w as not " preposterous " or based on plaintiff ignoring an obviously 24
false statement, particularly given Summers' assertion about plaintiff's value to the 25

company and his recommendation that plaintiff turn down the Medford Mail Tribune job

. 2619 In addition, allowing fr aud claims in the context of at

- will employment 1
serves the purpose behind allowing fraud claims: " The type of interest protected by the 2
law of deceit is the interest in formulating business judgments w ithout being misled by 3

others

-- in short, in not bein g cheated. " Riley Hill General Contractor , 303 Or at 407. If 4
employers could make misleading statements to prospective at

- will employees without 5
liability, business judgments regarding employment would not be protected from deceit

. 6

B usiness judgments re garding at

- will employment inherently involve some risk, and a 7
prospective employee (or employer) should be able to evaluate that risk without the 8

interference of fraud. 9
Although a prospective employee can bring a fraudulent misrepresentation 10

claim in th e context of at

- will employment, we emphasize that there are limitations on 11
those claims. Most notably, a plaintiff will have to prove damages to bring a successful 12

claim. See, e.g.
, Riley Hill General Contractor , 303 Or at 405 (listing damage to the 13
pla intiff as an element of a fraud claim)

. Nonetheless, plaintiff's decision to plead only 14
damages associated with the loss of the corporate job

-- rather than damages associated 15
with turning down the Medford Mail Tribune job

-- does not defeat his fraud claim
, as the 16
Court of Appeals suggest ed

. See Cocchiara , 247 Or App at 552. As noted , the at

- will 17
nature of employment does not create a conclusive presumption barring a plaintiff from 18
recovering future lost pay where the employee has been un lawfully ter minated from the 19
job, Tadsen , 324 Or at 4 70

- 71, or, as in this case, where plaintiff was never hired as 20
promised or allowed to start work

. Because this case was decided on a motion for 2120

summary judgment, however, whether plaintiff can sufficiently prove hi s damages 1
associated with not being hired for the corporate job is not now before this court. 2

For those reasons, the Court of Appeals erred in determin ing that , as a 3

matter of law, plaintiff could not reasonably rely on defendant ' s representations and c ould 4

not recover future lost wages solely because of the at

- will nature of the corporate job. 5
We emphasize that our holding goes no further, and we express no view as to whether 6
plaintiff's reliance was in fact reasonable
, whether plaintiff can satisfy the other elements 7
of his promissory estoppel and fraudulent misrepresentation claims , or whether plaintiff 8

is entitled to recover his claimed damages

. 9
The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed. The judgment of the 10

circuit court is reversed, and the case is remanded to the circuit court for further 11
proceedings. 12