DARGO V. CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 2008 WL 2225812 (2008) CASE BRIEF

DARGO V. CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
2008 WL 2225812 (2008)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Dargo (P) brought suit against Clear Channel (D) alleging promissory estoppel. D moved to dismiss.
FACTS: P had worked as an on-air radio personality for eight years and was working in a sales position at WLUP-FM in Chicago, Illinois. Program Director of radio station KDWB in Minneapolis, Minnesota ('Morris') contacted Pin March of 2007 and began to recruit her for a morning co-host position. In April of 2007, P and D agreed upon a two-year contract with a base salary of $60,000 for her first year and a base salary of $63,000 for her second year with the opportunity to earn additional income through promotional appearances. Morris sent an offer letter to P via email on April 18, 2007. Morris stated in that email that the agreed upon two-year employment contract would be forthcoming within a month. P resigned her position at WLUP-FM and relocated from Chicago to Minneapolis where she signed a one-year lease for housing. During her employment at KDWB, she received no negative performance feedback but rather was reassured that everything was going well. P repeatedly inquired about the status of her two-year contract, and Morris repeatedly told her that the contract was being drafted and would be ready shortly. In June of 2007, P spoke to Morris, who assured her that everything was going well and that the contract would be delivered in a day or two. Morris met with P on June 19, 2007 and terminated her employment effective immediately. P learned that Clear Channel never intended to enter into a two-year contract with her and that she actually never had a position at KDWB. D actually wanted to audition P for a potential position but knowing that she would not agree to relocate without a guarantee of permanent employment, induced her with the promise of a two-year contract. Morris and D had no intention to provide such a contract. D informed trade publications that she was returning to Chicago for 'personal reasons,' knowing that this was false. This damaged P's reputation and caused her difficulty in finding a new job.

ISSUE:


RULE OF LAW:


HOLDING AND DECISION:


LEGAL ANALYSIS:





Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com




© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner

No comments:

Post a Comment