This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P received a job offer from D. P understood that the offer was for a position that he could keep until he retired. P was 67 years old at the time he received the offer. P went to D's administrator seeking assurances about the permanency of P's position with D. P drafted a resignation letter to submit unless he received full assurances that D wanted him to stay. P handed over the resignation letter and the administrator assured him that there was at least five more years of work to do. P also asked for permission to talk to the chairman of the board of directors to seek similar assurances. The chairman of the board assured P that D wanted him to stay until P's retirement. P was asked to resign in less than 6 months. Employment was terminated in February. P sued. P had been hired as an at-will employee but alleged that his at-will employment status had been modified. P claims that D promised 5 more years of employment would be employed for a period of at least 5 years, inducing P to forgo another employment opportunity. P sued on an oral contract and promissory estoppel. D filed a motion for summary judgment. The district court held that the oral modification was not definite or specific enough to modify his at-will employment status. D got summary judgment The Court of Appeals reversed. It reasoned that the evidence created a genuine issue of material fact about whether D offered to extend P's employment until he chose to retire. D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.