Opinion ID: 160031
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Breach of Contract and Promissory Estoppel Claims

Text: 11 Plaintiff asserted state law breach of contract claims alleging defendants breached the provisions of the employment agreement. Applying Colorado law, we have held that an employer's personnel policies and procedures can form an implied contract. See Bullington, 186 F.3d at 1322. Policies and procedures that are nothing more than 'vague assurances' by the employer will not suffice. Id. (quoting Vasey v. Martin Marietta Corp., 29 F.3d 1460, 1465 (10th Cir. 1994)). 12 Plaintiff also asserted a claim of promissory estoppel premised on his alleged reliance on defendants' affirmative action policy. In order to sustain a claim under the theory of promissory estoppel, plaintiff must demonstrate that the employer should have reasonably expected the employee to consider the policy as a commitment from the employer, that the employee reasonably relied on the statements to [his] detriment, and that injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the policy. Id. 13 In rejecting these claims, the district court provided a thorough analysis of the facts and the law. In plaintiff's sixty-three page appellate brief, he devotes only one short page to these issues and does not point this court to any error in the district court's analysis or conclusions. 2 This court is not required to manufacture a party's argument on appeal when it has failed in its burden to draw our attention to the error below. National Commodity & Barter Ass'n Nat'l Commodity Exch. v. Gibbs, 886 F.2d 1240, 1244 (10th Cir. 1989); see also Murrell v. Shalala, 43 F.3d 1388, 1389 n.2 (10th Cir. 1994) (holding that perfunctory complaints which fail to frame and develop an issue are insufficient to invoke appellate review). Therefore, we affirm the district court on plaintiff's breach of contract and promissory estoppel issues for substantially the reasons stated in its August 4, 1999 order.