§ 6.6.2 OVERVIEW.

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

§ 6.6.2. Overview. The last decade has seen a vast expansion of cases using these theories, both offensively and, to a lesser degree, defensively. The most widely asserted of these cases are those relating to false statements made by employers to induce potential employees to leave a current job² to come work for the employer, stay with the employer forgoing other opportunities,³ or to relocate for a new job,⁴ all to the employee's detriment. Inducement to retire⁵ has also been a cause examined in numerous jurisdictions. Most cases hinge upon the elements established in state court decisions and state statutory provisions. While some states recognize a distinction between fraud and "fraud in the inducement," others appear to simply consider the latter to be a class of the former.⁶ Some states have four or five elements,⁷ while Arizona has nine elements of fraud (discussed infra in section 6.6.4). Unlike most state statutes, Arizona's inclusion of the requirement that the plaintiff has the "right to rely" on the statements is unusual and creates opportunities for considerable interpretive error. Subcategories, such as fraudulent concealment of information typically follow the Restatement (Second) of Torts.⁸ The at-will doctrine has been used to affect a variety of results from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.⁹ Preemption by federal statutes such as The Employee Retirement and Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA),¹⁰ and the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)¹¹ have been successful in some instances and not in others.¹² In addition, the federal government cannot be sued in tort for either negligent or intentional fraud pursuant to § 2680(h) of the Federal Tort Claims Act.¹³

Promissory estoppel is distinct from this analysis in that it is solely derived from a promise of future action as opposed to misrepresentation of a...