STEWART V. CENDANT MOBILITY SERVICES CORP. 837 A.2d 736 (2003) CASE BRIEF

STEWART V. CENDANT MOBILITY SERVICES CORP.

837 A.2d 736 (2003)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Stewart (P) sought damages for wrongful discharge and Cendant (D) appealed a judgment which granted in part P's motion for a directed verdict and rendered judgment partially in favor of P on her promissory estoppel claim.

FACTS: P and her husband were employed by D. P worked in the sales division and was considered one of the top producers in the relocation services industry. P's husband was an executive in the operations division at D. D underwent a major corporate reorganization. The husband lost his job. P held the position of vice president of sales. P spoke with D's executive vice president of sales, Simon, about her husband's termination and his desire to become hired by a competitor and if that would affect her status at D. Simon told P that she should not be concerned and that her husband's reemployment in the relocation services business would have no bearing on her employment with D. Simon further represented to the P that Kevin Kelleher, D's president and chief executive officer, also wished to assure P that she had no reason to be concerned about her continued status as a highly valued employee in the event that her husband were to become associated with a competitor. On these assurances, P continued in her position with D and did not pursue other employment opportunities. D learned that P's husband was performing consulting services for a competing firm. D then reduced P's duties and limited her interaction with clients. D also requested that P verbally agree to the provisions of a document drafted by D that purported to delineate her obligations to D in relation to her husband's work on behalf of any competitor of D. D terminated P's employment when she declined to agree to the provisions of that document. P sued D for breach of an oral contract, violation of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligence misrepresentation, and promissory estoppel. D got the verdict on the breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. P got a verdict of $850,000 for promissory estoppel and negligent misrepresentation. D appealed.

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