West Case Update

Employee May Sue Employer for Fraud and Unjust Enrichment

Description
An employee who claims she was induced to leave a job to take another one offered to her, but after she moved the employer changed the terms of employment, could sue the employer for promissory fraud and unjust enrichment.

Topic Employment Law

Key Words
Promissory Fraud; Unjust Enrichment

C A S E S U M M A R Y

Facts
DHR, an Illinois company, talked to Petrakopoulou about DHR’s desire to open an executive recruitment office in Paris. Later, DHR’s CEO, Hoffman, flew to London to meet with Petrakopoulou to discuss the terms of an offer to her. Hoffman then sent her an e-mail in which he promised that if she quit her current employment, DHR would pay her a base salary of $250,000, a signing bonus of $50,000, and other benefits spelled out in detail. Petrakopoulou accepted the offer, quit her job, and began work. She alleged that six months later DHR tried to change the terms of the agreement. She refused and was fired. She sued for fraudulent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment. DHR moved to dismiss her claims.

Decision
Motion denied. Petrakopoulou has stated valid claims under Illinois law. For fraudulent misrepresentation, she must prove that: 1) the defendant intentionally made a false statement of material fact; 2) the plaintiff had a right to rely on the false statement; 3) the statement was made for the purpose of inducing reliance thereon; 4) the plaintiff in fact relied on the statement; and 5) the plaintiff suffered an injury as a direct result. To state a claim for unjust enrichment, the plaintiff must allege that the defendant retained a benefit to the plaintiff’s detriment and that the retention of that benefit violates fundamental principles of justice, equity, and good conscience. This is a quasi-contract theory that permits court to imply the existence of a contract where none exists.

Citation Petrakopoulou v. DHR International, ---F.Supp2d--- (2009 WL 3234200, N.D. Ill., 2009)

Back to Employment Law Listings

Employee May Sue Employer for Fraud and Unjust Enrichment
Description	An employee who claims she was induced to leave a job to take another one offered to her, but after she moved the employer changed the terms of employment, could sue the employer for promissory fraud and unjust enrichment.
Topic	Employment Law
Key Words	Promissory Fraud; Unjust Enrichment
C A S E S U M M A R Y
Facts	DHR, an Illinois company, talked to Petrakopoulou about DHR’s desire to open an executive recruitment office in Paris. Later, DHR’s CEO, Hoffman, flew to London to meet with Petrakopoulou to discuss the terms of an offer to her. Hoffman then sent her an e-mail in which he promised that if she quit her current employment, DHR would pay her a base salary of $250,000, a signing bonus of $50,000, and other benefits spelled out in detail. Petrakopoulou accepted the offer, quit her job, and began work. She alleged that six months later DHR tried to change the terms of the agreement. She refused and was fired. She sued for fraudulent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment. DHR moved to dismiss her claims.
Decision	Motion denied. Petrakopoulou has stated valid claims under Illinois law. For fraudulent misrepresentation, she must prove that: 1) the defendant intentionally made a false statement of material fact; 2) the plaintiff had a right to rely on the false statement; 3) the statement was made for the purpose of inducing reliance thereon; 4) the plaintiff in fact relied on the statement; and 5) the plaintiff suffered an injury as a direct result. To state a claim for unjust enrichment, the plaintiff must allege that the defendant retained a benefit to the plaintiff’s detriment and that the retention of that benefit violates fundamental principles of justice, equity, and good conscience. This is a quasi-contract theory that permits court to imply the existence of a contract where none exists.
Citation	Petrakopoulou v. DHR International, ---F.Supp2d--- (2009 WL 3234200, N.D. Ill., 2009)