Opinion ID: 2637325
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Willard's Misrepresentation Claim

Text: Willard's amended complaint separately asserted a claim for misrepresentation, alleging that Khotol misrepresented three conditions or terms of his employment through its employee manual: (1) the right to progressive discipline, (2) the right to not be terminated without just cause, and (3) that any dismissal would be subject to the company's grievance procedure. Willard's complaint does not specify whether the misrepresentation claim is based on negligent or fraudulent misrepresentation. The superior court ruled that Willard failed to supply enough evidence to withstand summary judgment under either theory. The court ruled that the negligent misrepresentation claim lacked legal merit because the record established that Willard did not rely on the employee manual in deciding to accept the job. Similarly, the court ruled that a fraudulent misrepresentation claim was destined to fail because of Willard's lack of reliance or, alternatively, because Willard failed to offer any evidence that Khotol knowingly or intentionally made misrepresentations in its manual. Willard now asserts that the superior court erroneously failed to consider his argument that he reported Holtery's alleged harassment in reliance on statements in the employee manual. Willard also contends that the court failed to consider his argument that Khotol's characterization of Willard as an at will employee proves that Khotol never intended to honor the manual's promise that [n]o employee will be dismissed without just cause and all dismissals will be subject to the grievance procedures. Khotol responds that Willard presented no evidence of reliance. Citing the Restatement (Second) of Torts, [23] Khotol asserts that even if we accept Willard's premise that Khotol knew that the manual's promises about grievance procedures and discharge only for good cause were false, Willard would not have been justified in relying on those promises. Khotol argues that Willard's reliance was unjustifiable because the relevant provisions conflict with other provisions in the manual and the employment application, which state that all at-will employees may be terminated at any time and for any reason. The Restatement (Second) of Torts § 552 defines the four elements required to establish negligent misrepresentation as: (1) the party accused of misrepresentation must have made the statement in the course of his business, profession or employment; (2) the representation must supply false information; (3) the plaintiff must show justifiable reliance on the false information; and (4) the accused party must have failed to exercise reasonable care or competence in obtaining or communicating the information. [24] Fraudulent misrepresentation requires an additional element: proof that the party making the misrepresentation knew that it was untrue. [25] We agree with Khotol that Willard's misrepresentation claim fails because the record does not include any evidence supporting the requisite element of justified reliance. As the superior court noted, the evidence shows that Willard could not have relied on the statements in the employee manual in accepting the job with Khotol. Willard stated in his deposition that he accepted the job on June 2, 2003 by signing a written job offer and calling a company official to convey his acceptance. Yet he did not receive the employee manual until June 12 and failed to read it until sometime after that date. Willard also offered no support for his assertion that he relied on the employee manual in deciding to report Holtery's alleged harassment. In his reply brief, Willard points to his own deposition testimony that he read the employee manual's policy on harassment to find out [h]ow we were supposed to be treated. Yet the harassment section says nothing about for-cause employment or grievance procedures. Moreover, the manual specifically requires reports of alleged harassment to be in writing and states that they must contain specific details. Willard failed to comply with either requirement. Because Willard has failed to offer evidence supporting a finding of justified reliance on any alleged misrepresentation, we affirm the superior court's dismissal of Willard's misrepresentation claim.