Detrimental Reliance and Job Offers

[rex511]

ANY AND ALL ADVICE OR SUGGESTIONS APPRECIATED.

I'm new so here's the skinny.

I applied for a job offered in Louisiana, and was interviewed by a regional manager of a properties company. At the time was gainfully employed but looking for better job. After several planned meetings, with the regional manager, ( I had to travel there at my expense) they did a credit check, background check, references check, employment record check, all were returned positive in nature and I was hired. I Gave a timely notice and trained a man to take my place where I was working. And I purchased a whole new appropriate wardrobe. I was given the company manuals, etc, signed papers, w-4 forms, all pertinent data and was to report for work March 6, 2006. At 10:00pm on March 5 2006 was called by a member of the board of this company and told "we have decided to not make a change in managers at this time. All we can say is I'm sorry. Maybe you can get your old job back. I could call them if that would help you." I called the regional manager by cell phone and she was on her way down to meet with me at the work site and begin training me. She was shocked, as she had also just gotten the word. I am Left with no job, for no reason and a family to support . All reports were positive-have an excellent work record and history. Was I ever really an employee? And does this fall under the "detrimental reliance" or estoppel doctrine that I have read about online? :evil:

[Mr. Knowitall]

From the case of May v. Harris Mgmt. Corp., No. 2004 CA 2657 (La App, 1st Cir, 2005), assuming the new job offer was for at-will employment, it appears that you won't be able to successfully claim detrimental reliance.

We hold that it is unreasonable as a matter of law to rely on an offer of at-will employment, just as it is patently unreasonable to rely on the permanency of at-will employment once it begins. The general rule that employment contracts are terminable at will unless a specified duration is stated, applies to both post-acceptance (or pre-performance) and post-performance phases of the at-will employment contract

* * *

[T]he reality is that HMC could have terminated May the day she was to begin her employment on April 27, 1998, leaving her with no recourse against HMC for detrimental reliance under the previously outlined Louisiana jurisprudence. Therefore, even if we had ruled the opposite way in this opinion (i.e., finding that her reliance on the offer of at-will employment was reasonable), May still would have been unable to meet the elements of her detrimental reliance claim because she could not prove damages. Under the at-will employment doctrine, HMC would not have been responsible for any of May's damages after the date that she was to start work.