Stewart v. Cendant Mobility Services Corp.
Supreme Court of Connecticut
837 A.2d 736 (Conn. 2003)
Elizabeth M. Stewart (plaintiff) and her husband were both employed as executives for Cendant Mobility Services Corp. (Cendant) (defendant). In April 1998, Cendant terminated Stewart’s husband’s employment. As an at will employee, Stewart become concerned that her husband might seek work with one of Cendant’s competitors, and thereby adversely affect her employment with Cendant. She approached James Simon, her immediate supervisor, who assured Stewart that her husband’s employment with a competitor would not affect her employment with Cendant. Simon told Stewart that she had nothing to worry about, that he regarded her as trustworthy, and that she was a highly valued employee. Simon also conveyed assurances from the president of Cendant that Stewart’s employment would not be affected. Based on these assurances, Stewart chose to stay with Cendant and did not seek employment elsewhere. On March 5, 1999, Cendant became aware that Stewart’s husband was working for a competitor. Cendant began limiting Stewart’s duties and demanded that she sign an agreement setting forth her obligations to Cendant regarding her husband’s employment. Stewart refused and her employment was terminated on June 11, 1999. At the time of her termination, Stewart was owed approximately $812,700.00 in unpaid commissions. Stewart brought suit against Cendant on a theory of promissory estoppel, alleging that she relied on Simon’s assurances to her detriment. At trial, Stewart asserted that her skills were considered highly marketable in her field and that she could have obtained another job that would have offered a signing bonus to match any foregone commissions from Cendant. The jury ruled in favor of Stewart on her promissory estoppel claim and awarded her $850,000.00. Cendant moved to set aside the verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The trial court denied Cendant’s motions. Cendant appealed, arguing that its alleged promise to Stewart lacked the clarity and definiteness necessary for a promissory estoppel claim and that Stewart failed to establish that she had relied on the alleged promise to her detriment.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Palmer, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 166,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,800 briefs, keyed to 187 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.