Goff-Hamel v. Obstetricians & Gynecologists
Nebraska Supreme Court
588 N.W.2d 798 (1999)
Facts
Julie Goff-Hamel (plaintiff) resigned from her employment at Hastings Family Planning (Hastings) because she was offered a job with Obstetricians & Gynecologists (Obstetricians) (defendant). Goff-Hamel had worked for Hastings for 11 years. Dr. George Adam from Obstetricians began recruiting Goff-Hamel to work for his firm in June 1993. Adam and Goff-Hamel eventually met to discuss terms of employment with Obstetricians on July 27, 1993. At this meeting, Adam offered Goff-Hamel a full-time job, which she accepted. The job was to start October 4, 1993. Goff-Hamel informed Hastings in August that she would be resigning. The day before she was scheduled to start working at Obstetricians, someone from Obstetricians told Goff-Hamel that she should not report to work the next day because one of the part owners objected to hiring her. Goff-Hamel’s offer of employment had been revoked. As a result, Goff-Hamel was unemployed due to her resignation from Hastings in anticipation of her employment with Obstetricians. She was unable to secure new employment until April 1995. Goff-Hamel brought a claim against Obstetricians based upon a theory of promissory estoppel. The court determined that Obstetricians was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law because Goff-Hamel was hired as an at-will employee by Obstetricians. Goff-Hamel appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wright, J.)
Dissent (Stephan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 709,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,500 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
