Detrimental Reliance After Moving Internationally

**cda9er** · 12-10-2008, 09:29 PM

My question involves labor and employment law for the state of: Iowa, and International Employment issues. I was hired in the State of Iowa (I am a resident of Missouri) by a company to represent them as they entered into China. The contract was signed in Iowa, and is pursuant to Iowa's employment laws. I signed a contract that was an "at-will" contract. This was in August. I then moved to China in September, and rented an apartment as per our discussions (completely oral). I rented an apartment based on a year commitment, and began payments as such. Within 6 weeks I was notified that I was no longer employed (there was no legal transgression, but I was told that it was due to financial pressure). Now, I was left in a situation that I had to get out of my apartment, and get out of many contracts that I had signed when I moved to that area (for this company). When I was notified of no longer being employed, I was also not offered any type of severance. I am aware that there is not a law requiring for severance to be given.
My question to the legal community out there, is this: What am I able to ask for with this case? What (beyond my apartment) is the company going to be required to give me. What kinds of precedents are there that I can look at to determine what my next step should be? Is there any ability for me to claim some type of 'financial hardship', etc because I was asked to move from Missouri to China?
Thanks in advance for any and all insight.
Dan

**Betty3** · 12-10-2008, 11:58 PM

You might have a claim for detrimental reliance. You need to talk to an attorney.

**Mr. Knowitall** · 12-11-2008, 07:19 AM

The Iowa Supreme Court has defined promissory estoppel in an employment context as follows:

Quoting Schoff v. Combined Ins. Co. of Am., 604 N.W.2d 43 (1999)

Accordingly, we state the elements of promissory estoppel as follows: (1) a clear and definite promise; (2) the promise was made with the promisor's clear understanding that the promisee was seeking an assurance upon which the promisee could rely and without which he would not act; (3) the promisee acted to his substantial detriment in reasonable reliance on the promise; and (4) injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise.