Opinion ID: 43704
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Estoppel and Misrepresentation

Text: The district court dismissed Roberts’ estoppel and misrepresentation claims for failure to state a claim. Roberts bases these claims upon Rayonier’s Code of Conduct, in which Rayonier allegedly “promises” that it will “observe the law both in letter and spirit” and will “not discriminate against employees because of disabilities.” The district court rejected Roberts’ estoppel and misrepresentation claims on grounds that “it is well established Florida law that policy statements contained in employment manuals do not give rise to enforceable contract rights in Florida unless they contain specific language which expresses the parties’ explicit mutual agreement that the manual constitutes a separate employment contract.” The court also stated that “[t]his Court seriously doubts that a statement to obey the law induced Plaintiff to do anything.” Although Roberts’ claims should fail, the district court’s suggestion that the existence of an enforceable contract is pivotal to the viability of a promissory 7 This case presents an issue of first impression in our circuit as to whether a nondisabled person can bring a medical test retaliation claim. We expressly decline to decide that issue and leave it to the district court in the first instance. 23 estoppel claim is misplaced. Indeed, the purpose of the doctrine of promissory estoppel is to provide a remedy in the absence of an enforceable contract. See, e.g. Williston on Contracts, Chapter 8 (“Promises without Mutual Assent or Consideration), Sec. 4; Robert A. Brazener, Annotation, Promissory Estoppel As Basis For Avoidance Of Statute Of Frauds, 56 A.L.R.3d 1037 § 2 (1974); Buckholz v. F.D.I.C., 129 F.3d 868 (6th Cir. 1997). Rather, Roberts’ estoppel and misrepresentation claims are without merit because each doctrine requires the plaintiff to take action in reasonable reliance.8 The general statement in a policy manual of an intent to follow the law does not create any new, specific expectations based upon which it would be reasonable for an employee to change positions. Put differently, we hold that, as a matter of law, Roberts would not have been justified 8 Promissory estoppel is: A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance on the part of the promisee or third person and which does induce such action or forbearance is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise. W.R. Grace and Co. v. Geodata Services, Inc., 547 So 2d 919, 924 (Fla. 1989) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 90 (1979)). Roberts “misrepresentation” is either a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation or negligent misrepresentation. Under Florida law, the elements of fraudulent misrepresentation are: “(1) a false statement of a material fact; (2) known by the defendant to be false; (3) made to induce the plaintiff to act in reliance; (4) the plaintiffs acts in reliance upon the representations; and (5) that proximately caused his injury.” Butterworth v. Quick & Reilly, Inc., 998 F.Supp. 1404, 1410 (M.D. Fla. 1998) (citations omitted). The elements for negligent misrepresentation are those for a fraud claim, except that it does not require the element of knowledge to establish scienter. Id. at 1411 (citations omitted). Both possible misrepresentation claims require reasonable reliance. 24 in changing his position on the basis of general language committing Rayonier to do that which it was already legally committed to do. Accordingly, we affirm the district court with respect to these claims.