Stewart v. Jackson & Nash
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
976 F.2d 86 (1992)
- Written by Kelsey Libby, JD
Facts
Victoria A. Stewart (plaintiff) was employed as a lawyer in the environmental-law department of a New York law firm. In 1988, Stewart was recruited by Ronald Herzog, a partner at another firm, Jackson & Nash (defendants). According to Stewart, Herzog made the following representations to induce her to work at Jackson & Nash: (1) that the firm had recently obtained a big environmental-law client, (2) that the firm was in the process of establishing an environmental-law department, (3) that Stewart would be appointed head of the environmental-law department, and (4) that Stewart would be responsible for servicing the big environmental-law client. Relying on Herzog’s representations, Stewart left her firm and began working at Jackson & Nash. After Stewart arrived, she was required to do general-litigation work, but Herzog repeatedly assured her that the environmental work was forthcoming. The big environmental-law client and environmental work never materialized. Jackson heard that the firm never really had any environmental work and the client never existed. Jackson & Nash discharged Stewart in 1990. Stewart sued Jackson & Nash for fraudulent inducement, among other theories of recovery. The district court dismissed the fraudulent-inducement claim, reasoning that it arose from Stewart’s discharge and thus was barred under employment-at-will principles. Stewart appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Walker, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.