This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Health & Fitness

After Heart Attack, a Search for Less Stress

Employee could not recover for not getting "at will" job.

After suffering a heart attack, Michael Cocchiara wanted less stress in his life. Ironically, his employment dispute led to one of life’s stressful situations – a lawsuit. 

According to a recent decision by the Court of Appeals of Oregon, Mr. Cocchiara, a car salesman, told his employers at Lithia Motors, Inc., that he needed less stressful work after the heart attack, and had taken a job with with a different employer, the Medford Mail Tribune. Cocchiara said Lithia called him “too valuable” to Lithia and said he should withdraw from the Mail Tribune job, and that if he would come in the next day to complete some formalities, they would give him a “corporate” purchasing job to accommodate his disability. 

However, he told the Court, when he went in the next day, he discovered he had not been hired, but was only going to be interviewed. By then, he had already backed out of the Mail Tribune job and could not get it back. He did not get Lithia’s corporate job and wound up in a job paying less than it would have. 

Find out what's happening in West Hartfordwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

Cocchiara went to court, stating that Lithia promised him the corporate job and claiming damages based on wages he would have earned in that job. For reasons not explained in the decision, he did not claim damages based on potential earnings from the Mail Tribune job. (He also withdrew another claim, for discrimination due to disability under an Oregon statute.) 

In its defense, Lithia asserted that Cocchiara had lost nothing, because Lithia would only have rehired him to work “at will,” meaning that either party could have terminated the job at any time for any reason, or no reason. The Court agreed, and said this meant Cocchiara could not rely on any promise of employment, and so has no claim for damages for not getting the job. The Court stated that an at-will job remains an at-will job, even when given to a disabled person as an accommodation for the disability. The Court affirmed the lower court's judgment for defendants.

Find out what's happening in West Hartfordwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

The Court did not rule that there are no limitations on firing an “at will” employee.  This case did not involve that issue. As the Court suggested, the law prohibits discrimination in employment, which a firing might be. Also, a “whistleblower” law may protect employees who take certain actions in the public interest. Statements in employee handbooks may be interpreted to protect employees. Also, a union collective bargaining agreement may impact an employer’s termination rights.  A written employment contract may prohibit termination, other than for cause, for a defined period of time. 

Legal brief. The case discussed is Cocchiara v. Lithia Motors, Inc., (Ct. App. Ore. December 29, 2011). Appeal from summary judgment for defendant on claims of fraudulent misrepresentation and promissory estoppel related to alleged promise of employment to accommodate employee disability. Held, affirmed. Plaintiff could not reasonably rely on defendants’ statements as promising anything other than “at will” employment, nor recover damages based thereon. Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed without prejudice statutory claim for employment discrimination on basis of disability.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?