Estoppel claim over leave OK

Listen to this article

A plaintiff could sue her former employer under a promissory estoppel theory over an alleged promise to allow a leave of absence, a U.S. District Court judge has ruled.

The plaintiff argued that she relied to her detriment on an assurance by the defendant employer’s representatives that it “would not be a problem” for her to take two and a half weeks off to attend her son’s out-of-state high school graduation and to help him move back home.

“Although the phrase that taking leave ‘would not be a problem’ could have numerous meanings in this context, [plaintiff Robin] Merricks alleges that it meant if she became a Savers [Inc.] employee, she would be able to take a leave of absence without being terminated,” Judge Denise J. Casper wrote. “It is certainly plausible, based on the facts alleged in the complaint, that Merricks reasonably relied on the representation made to her during her interview that if she accepted the position, she could take such leave.”

Having so concluded, the judge denied a defense motion to dismiss the promissory estoppel claim.

The 15-page decision is Merricks v. Savers, Inc., Lawyers Weekly No. 02-008-12. Click here to read a digest of the decision and the full text of the opinion.