3 ms·

If you somehow are under California jurisdiction, the legal term you are looking for is called "promissory estoppel". Being given a promise of a job may have p

by bsder 3y ago

If you somehow are under California jurisdiction, the legal term you are looking for is called "promissory estoppel". Being given a promise of a job may have put Flexport on the hook for damages.

gnicholas 3y ago
This is a general legal concept, not limited to CA. It’s also referred to as “section 90 reliance”.
- bsder 3y ago
  True. It's just that California courts tend to take a much dimmer view of these kinds of shenanigans than, say, Texas courts.
  - gnicholas 3y ago
    A quick google would indicate that Texas and California actually apply the concept in very similar ways: > Local politics do not seem to matter to the new formulation; the law on the ground in Texas, New York, California, Florida, Illinois, Ohio, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and others is much the same, and it is not Section 90. [1] 1: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4117874 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4117874
dragonwriter 3y ago
But what damages? Unless the pronise was of a job which itself wasn't at will employment, they could have terminated you immediately when you took it up, so even if promissory estoppel applies (which requires not only the promise, but reasonable and detrimental reliance on it) there's unlikely to be much recovery. Not saying its not worth exploring, but I wouldn't expect much out of it.
- anon84873628 3y ago
  Most people get most of their income from salary; you don't think loss of all your income is detrimental?
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    No, I'm saying that the delta between breaking the promise by rescinding the offer and the worst-case situation consistent with carrying through with the offer (giving you and at will employment and firing you as soon as possible thereafter) is very little, and thus there are unlikely to be significant damages even if the threshold of reasonable, detrimental reliance is met.
    - bsder 3y ago
      If you left your job based on such a promise, your damages are some significant fraction of the salary you left. Yes, you are "at will" but that doesn't mean a company can just completely do as it pleases. If you have certain things like moving expenses that are expected to be repaid if you leave within a year that sets up certain promises and expectations. Or, if you sold your house in preparation to move, there are also pretty obvious damages. For a lot of software developers, these damages are not small. In addition, the case is pretty clear cut and lawyers are very likely to take it on contingency. You also might find Flexport amenable to negotation on something they're likely to spend a bunch of lawyer money on only to lose anyway. This is especially true if they risk going to court and creating a blueprint for a bunch of people to come after them.
      - dragonwriter 3y ago
        > If you left your job based on such a promise, your damages are some significant fraction of the salary you left. Some significant fraction of that salary for the minimum period you could have been employed by the company without violating the promise. If they hadn't rescinded the offer but had fired you (other than for an illegal reason, like racial discrimination) shortly after hiring, you would have no damages,so even to the extent the promise is binding under an estoppel theory, the damages will be limited. > Or, if you sold your house in preparation to move, there are also pretty obvious damages. How is it market value sale damages? You traded an asset for its market value, there's no economic loss.
wcunning 3y ago
My point was more that suing to get those damages would be hard and unlikely to pay out more than legal costs without a class action lawsuit and lawyers working on contingency. That might apply to flexport in this context, but I wouldn’t count on it in the future. Also wouldn’t make up for missed mortgage payments…
- darth_avocado 3y ago
  It can get expensive but the damages can go very high, at the minimum it covers the loss of pay (or potential pay if you rejected other offers for this).

by bsder 3y ago

If you somehow are under California jurisdiction, the legal term you are looking for is called "promissory estoppel". Being given a promise of a job may have put Flexport on the hook for damages.

gnicholas 3y ago

This is a general legal concept, not limited to CA. It’s also referred to as “section 90 reliance”.

bsder 3y ago
True. It's just that California courts tend to take a much dimmer view of these kinds of shenanigans than, say, Texas courts.
- gnicholas 3y ago
  A quick google would indicate that Texas and California actually apply the concept in very similar ways: > Local politics do not seem to matter to the new formulation; the law on the ground in Texas, New York, California, Florida, Illinois, Ohio, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and others is much the same, and it is not Section 90. [1] 1: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4117874 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4117874

dragonwriter 3y ago

But what damages? Unless the pronise was of a job which itself wasn't at will employment, they could have terminated you immediately when you took it up, so even if promissory estoppel applies (which requires not only the promise, but reasonable and detrimental reliance on it) there's unlikely to be much recovery. Not saying its not worth exploring, but I wouldn't expect much out of it.

anon84873628 3y ago
Most people get most of their income from salary; you don't think loss of all your income is detrimental?
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  No, I'm saying that the delta between breaking the promise by rescinding the offer and the worst-case situation consistent with carrying through with the offer (giving you and at will employment and firing you as soon as possible thereafter) is very little, and thus there are unlikely to be significant damages even if the threshold of reasonable, detrimental reliance is met.
  - bsder 3y ago
    If you left your job based on such a promise, your damages are some significant fraction of the salary you left. Yes, you are "at will" but that doesn't mean a company can just completely do as it pleases. If you have certain things like moving expenses that are expected to be repaid if you leave within a year that sets up certain promises and expectations. Or, if you sold your house in preparation to move, there are also pretty obvious damages. For a lot of software developers, these damages are not small. In addition, the case is pretty clear cut and lawyers are very likely to take it on contingency. You also might find Flexport amenable to negotation on something they're likely to spend a bunch of lawyer money on only to lose anyway. This is especially true if they risk going to court and creating a blueprint for a bunch of people to come after them.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > If you left your job based on such a promise, your damages are some significant fraction of the salary you left. Some significant fraction of that salary for the minimum period you could have been employed by the company without violating the promise. If they hadn't rescinded the offer but had fired you (other than for an illegal reason, like racial discrimination) shortly after hiring, you would have no damages,so even to the extent the promise is binding under an estoppel theory, the damages will be limited. > Or, if you sold your house in preparation to move, there are also pretty obvious damages. How is it market value sale damages? You traded an asset for its market value, there's no economic loss.

wcunning 3y ago

My point was more that suing to get those damages would be hard and unlikely to pay out more than legal costs without a class action lawsuit and lawyers working on contingency. That might apply to flexport in this context, but I wouldn’t count on it in the future. Also wouldn’t make up for missed mortgage payments…

darth_avocado 3y ago
It can get expensive but the damages can go very high, at the minimum it covers the loss of pay (or potential pay if you rejected other offers for this).