Court Opinion

ID: 9470313
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 03:02:17.77079+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:41:50.097822
License: Public Domain

BECKER, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
Because the record contains evidence that Vastoler was disadvantaged by taking a supervisory position — evidence sufficient to create a triable issue of fact on the question of substantial detrimental reliance — I agree that the grant of summary judgment should be set aside.1 I write separately, however, because I find myself in disagreement with the language or tenor of the majority opinion in three respects. First, I note my understanding that, the majority, despite the strength of its characterization of appellee’s past behavior (i.e., that appellee “welched” on its. original promise to appellant), does not intend to intimate a view on the ultimate validity of appellant’s arguments. We have taken those arguments to be true only for purposes of reviewing a grant of summary judgment. Second, I note my understanding that the language in the fifth paragraph in Part III of the majority’s opinion is not to be construed as holding that the failure of appellee to award pension benefits based upon continuous service (the alleged promise upon which appellant sued) can itself be the substantial detriment required to trigger the doctrine of promissory estoppel. Third, while I agree with the majority that New Jersey law (which I understand to be applicable in this diversity case) probably permits a jury to find that the stress and anxiety of a supervisory position constitute a detriment sufficient to warrant application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel, I note my understanding that the existence of such stress or anxiety, if proven at trial, is but one factor for the jury to consider along with the relevant financial considerations in determining whether there was substantial detrimental reliance within the meaning of Restatement of Contracts § 90. See Friedman v. Tappan Development Corp., 22 N.J. 523, 126 A.2d 646 (1956) (citing Restatement of Contracts § 90 (1932)); Malaker Corp. Stockholders Protective Committee v. First Jersey National Bank, 163 N.J.Super. 463, 395 A.2d 222 (App.Div. 1978); E.A. Coronis Associates v. M. Gordon Construction Co., 90 N.J.Super. 69, 216 A.2d 246 (App.Div.1966) (citing Restatement of Contracts § 90).
With these qualifications, I join the opinion of the Court.

. I rely particularly upon plaintiffs allegations: (1) that had he known about the lower benefit he was to receive he would have increased his contributions to his ALA pension plan to secure better retirement income; and (2) that he remained with American Can Company (and therefore abjured other employment possibilities) because of the promised pension benefits.