Pettersen v. Monaghan Safar Ducham Pllc

256 A.3d 604 (2021)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D hired P as an associate attorney in February 2016. Throughout his nearly two-year employment P believed that he was underpaid. His starting salary was $55,000 per year, as well as a $3000 annual stipend for health insurance, and other benefits. When D offered the job to P, P expressed concern about the salary but nevertheless accepted the job. P signed an employment letter stating that his employment was at will, incorporating the above starting salary, and noting the potential for bonuses based on his performance and D's revenues. After six months, D conducted a performance review and gave P a nine-percent raise, increasing his base salary to $60,000 per year. P was still not satisfied. P continually looked for other jobs in Vermont. After the performance review, P told D that he was uncomfortable with his salary and sought more information regarding D's typical partnership track. P thought becoming a partner and earning $100,000 annually after five years was reasonable if his good performance continued. D said that trajectory was reasonable. P clarified that to reach this salary, it would be reasonable that his raises would need to increase as a percentage of his salary, and D agreed this was reasonable. P viewed D's statements as a promise that D made to him concerning compensation and partnership. P received additional raises and bonuses. In December 2016, D gave him a $6000 bonus. He received another $6000 bonus in December 2017. P told partners that he was “hoping for a bit more.” In response, D gave him an additional $1100 bonus. In March 2018, D conducted P's second performance review and P received a four-percent raise, increasing his base salary to $62,500 per year. P decided that D breached its “partnership track” promise to him. P copied client files to his personal computer. He also downloaded his emails, calendars, and contact list. He obtained trial accounts with Westlaw and LexisNexis. On April 10, 2018, P wrote a demand letter to D asserting that he believed he had legal claims against D and offering to settle. P stated, “I must now look for different employment at a law firm where I will be starting anew,” but ended the letter saying, “I will continue my excellent service to D and its clients in the meantime.” D asked if there was anything that they could do to keep him employed with D. P said he was seeking other employment. D rejected P's settlement offer, and “to the extent you have not already resigned your employment, we hereby terminate your employment with D as of today.” P sued D for promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment, intentional misrepresentation, wrongful termination, defamation, and tortious interference with contractual relations. P claimed D promised him “a partnership-track position that would earn compensation of $100,000 within five years” and that he would receive “larger raises each of those years.” P argued that he relied on this promise and continued to work for D when he otherwise would have left, and thus sought recovery under a promissory estoppel theory. D moved for summary judgment on all claims. The court granted D's motion for summary judgment. It held that D's statement - that P's proposed career trajectory was “reasonable” - was a vague statement that was not actionable as a promise. Even if the statement were a promise, the court concluded that P had shown neither reliance upon nor detriment from it. P appealed.