You are here: / / “At Will” Employee Stated a Cause of Action Alleging Defendants...
,

“At Will” Employee Stated a Cause of Action Alleging Defendants Fraudulently Induced Him to Take the “At Will” Job

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, determined plaintiff had stated a cause of action for fraud in the inducement in connection with plaintiff’s acceptance of “at will” employment with defendants. The complaint alleged that defendants induced plaintiff to leave his well-compensated position with J P Morgan by falsely indicating plaintiff was being hired because of defendants’ heavy work load. The complaint further alleged that defendants did not have much work and plaintiff was hired solely to provide defendants with his business contacts. After turning over his business contacts, plaintiff alleged, defendants terminated him, claiming there was not enough work to support his position. The First Department reasoned plaintiff was not seeking damages for wrongful termination, which is not available for an “at will” employee, but rather was seeking damages for defendants’ fraudulently inducing him to give up his lucrative employment with J P Morgan in order to take the “at will” employment. The court further noted that the “general” merger clause in the “at will” employment contract did not preclude the action and the action concerned statements of material existing fact, not (nonactionable) statements of future expectations:

An at-will employee, who has been terminated, can not state a fraudulent inducement claim on the basis of having relied upon the employer’s promise not to terminate the contract … , or upon any representations of future intentions as to the duration or security of his employment … . However, where an at-will employee alleges an injury “separate and distinct from termination of the [his] employment,” he may have a cause of action for fraudulent inducement … . The at-will employee must allege not that his employer wrongly fired him, but that “[he] would not have taken the job in the first place if the true facts had been revealed to [him]” … .

Plaintiff does not allege that defendants wrongfully terminated him. He claims that they misrepresented the nature of the job that they were hiring him to do, that they were only hiring him to gain access to his contacts and that if they had told him this he would not have left his job at J.P. Morgan to work for them. Indeed, plaintiff’s injury preceded his termination.

Nor are plaintiff’s damages speculative, since he alleged that they stem not from his loss of employment with defendants, but from his loss of employment with J.P. Morgan. These damages represent “the sum necessary for restoration to the position occupied before the commission of the fraud” … . Laduzinski v Alvarez & Marsal Taxand LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 06646, 1st Dept 8-25-15

 

You might also like
IN NEW YORK THERE ARE NO CAUSES OF ACTION FOR “PRECONCEPTION NEGLIGENCE” OR “WRONGFUL LIFE;” HERE MOTHER ALLEGED THE DRUG SHE HAD BEEN TAKING FOR EPILEPSY BEFORE SHE LEARNED SHE WAS PREGNANT CAUSED THE BABY TO BE BORN WITH SPINA BIFIDA (FIRST DEPT). ​
The Purchasers’ Purported Retraction of an Earlier Repudiation of the Purchase Contract Was Not “Bona Fide” Because It Imposed a Condition for the Retraction Which Was Not Contemplated by the Purchase Contract—Sellers Entitled to Keep $365,000 Downpayment Based Upon Purchasers’ Failure to Close
THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT IN THIS LANDLORD-TENANT ACTION WAS NOT INVALIDATED BY A CHANGE IN THE LAW BASED UPON A COURT OF APPEALS DECISION ISSUED A MONTH AFTER THE STIPULATION; A “MISTAKE OF LAW” DOES NOT INVALIDATE A STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT DID NOT PRODUCE AN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT WITH PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT WAS PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL EMPLOYER; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S PERSONAL INJURY ACTION WAS PRECLUDED BY HIS ELECTION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS (FIRST DEPT).
PROPERTY OWNER, AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED UNDER THE SECURITY COMPANY’S POLICY, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO COVERAGE FOR A SECURITY GUARD’S SLIP AND FALL ON A RECENTLY MOPPED FLOOR, THE ADDITIONAL INSURED WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INJURY (FIRST DEPT).
PSYCHIATRIC CENTER DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY CONTINUED RETENTION OF RESPONDENT.
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE SLIPPED ON LIQUID AND FELL AFTER REACHING FOR THE HANDRAIL, WHICH WAS LOOSE, DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE LIQUID BUT DID NOT MEET THEIR BURDEN ON THE ALLEGEDLY LOOSE HANDRAIL (FIRST DEPT).
OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD NOT LIABLE FOR INJURY TO PLAINTIFF WHO WAS SHOT ON THE SIDEWALK OUTSIDE THE LESSEE’S BAR (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Case Should Not Have Been Dismissed on Forum Non Conveniens Grounds—Analytical... Plaintiff Entitled to Summary Judgment Re: Fall from Non-Defective Ladder After...