WI Court of Appeals rules employer's promise to be enforced by estoppel.

Byline: David Ziemer

Where an employer reneges on a promise made to induce an employee to stay, promissory estoppel requires that the promise be enforced, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals held on Oct. 24. William Skebba, a salesman, worked for many years for M.W. Kasch Co., which was owned by Jeffrey C. Kasch. When M.W. Kasch Co. experienced serious financial problems in 1993, Skebba was solicited by another company to leave Kasch and work for them. When Skebba told Kasch he was accepting the new opportunity, Kasch asked what it would take to get him to stay. Skebba requested a payment of $250,000 if one of these three conditions occurred: (1) the company was sold; (2) Skebba was terminated; or (3) Skebba retired. Nothing in Writing Kasch agreed, but no written agreement was ever drawn. In 1999, the company assets were sold, but Kasch denied the existence of the agreement, and refused to pay. Skebba sued, alleging breach of contract and promissory estoppel. The jury found that there was no contract, but that Kasch had made the promise to Skebba. It also held that Skebba relied to his detriment on the promise, that the reliance was foreseeable, and that Skebba suffered damages in the amount of $250,000. However, in motions after verdict, Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Kitty K. Brennan held that Skebba failed to prove damages, because he did not prove what he would have earned had he taken the other job. Skebba appealed, and the court of appeals reversed in a decision by Judge Joan F. Kessler. Promissory Estoppel The conditions of promissory estoppel were set forth in Hoffman v. Red Owl Food Stores, 26 Wis.2d 683, 698, 133 N.W.2d 267 (1965), as follows: (1) Was the promise one which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee? (2) Did the promise induce such action or forbearance? (3) Can injustice be avoided only by enforcement of the promise? The first two conditions are factual, for the jury to decide, but in U.S. Oil Co., Inc., v. Midwest Auto Care Servs., 150 Wis.2d 80, 440 N.W.2d 825 (Ct.App.1989), the court of appeals adopted five policy considerations for the court to employ in determining whether the third condition is met. The court found that the trial court failed to apply the policy considerations from U.S. Oil, but instead relied on a law review article which states, "damages should not...