Jarboe v. Landmark Community Newspapers of Indiana, Inc.

Decision Date21 December 1993
Docket NumberNo. 62A04-9212-CV-454,62A04-9212-CV-454
Citation625 N.E.2d 1291
PartiesTearle J. JARBOE, Appellant-Plaintiff, v. LANDMARK COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS OF INDIANA, INC., and News Publishing Company, Inc., Barbara Friedman, Individually and in her capacity as General Manager of News Publishing Company, Inc., Appellees-Defendants. 1
CourtIndiana Appellate Court

Michael C. Kendall, Kendall Law Office, Indianapolis, for appellant-plaintiff.

Richard A. Bierly, Barbara W. Gernert, Wyatt, Tarrant, Combs & Orbison, New Albany, for appellees-defendants.

BAKER, Judge.

Today we decide whether a person who has an oral employment contract unenforceable under Indiana's Statute of Frauds may pursue a wrongful discharge claim under the doctrine of promissory estoppel.

Appellant-plaintiff Tearle J. Jarboe (Jarboe) challenges the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of appellee-defendants Landmark Community Newspaper of Indiana and News Publishing Co. (collectively Landmark) in an action for unjust dismissal in breach of a one-year oral employment contract. 2

FACTS 3

The facts most favorable to Jarboe are the Tell City News and Cannelton News In 1977, Landmark Community Newspaper, the parent of the defendant Landmark, purchased the Tell City News and Cannelton News and renamed the paper The News. At this time, Landmark told Jarboe that the terms of his employment would remain the same. Landmark continued to evaluate Jarboe the same as before, on approximately an annual basis. Each year Jarboe received a favorable review. However, the parties never executed a written employment agreement.

hired Jarboe as a full-time employee in the advertising composition department in November 1972. At that time, the general manager told Jarboe that he had a one-year employment contract, that he would be discharged for good cause only, that he would be reviewed every year, that if his performance was satisfactory he would have a secure job for another year, and that if his performance was unsatisfactory, he would be placed on probation for 30 to 60 days after which he would be retained or fired. Although the manager evaluated Jarboe on approximately an annual basis, the reviews were not performed on Jarboe's November anniversary or any other specified date. The time period for annual reviews ranged from eight to fourteen months. The parties never executed a written contract incorporating their oral agreement.

In 1981 and in 1984, Jarboe requested leaves of absence from Landmark in order to have orthoscopic surgery on his knee. Each time, Jarboe told Landmark that he did not know how long he would be absent from work, yet Landmark granted each leave and told Jarboe that his job would await his return. Jarboe relied on Landmark's promises and had the surgeries. Jarboe returned to his same job after approximately five months of leave in 1981 and after approximately four months of leave in 1984.

On May 5, 1988, Jarboe's surgeon, Dr. James Heinrich, advised him that he needed a total knee replacement to relieve his pain caused by severe degenerative arthritis. Dr. Heinrich expected Jarboe would be unable to work for approximately three months.

The next day Jarboe relayed his surgeon's diagnosis to Landmark's general manager, Barbara Friedman. Friedman responded by telling Jarboe to take off work as long as he needed because his health was the most important thing and that when Jarboe returned to work he would be healthier and better able to perform his job. Friedman further assured Jarboe that he would be able to return to his same job whenever he was able to return to work. 4 Relying on Friedman's promises, Jarboe decided to have knee surgery on June 6, 1988, instead of waiting until he could build up more sick leave.

On July 28, 1988, while Jarboe was home recuperating, Friedman unexpectedly informed Jarboe that Landmark would keep his job open only until September 6, 1988, and that if he did not return by then he would be replaced. 5 Jarboe objected and reminded Friedman that she had promised to keep his job open until he was medically able to return to work. In the interim, Jarboe did everything possible to rehabilitate his knee hoping to return to work in September. However, on September 7, 1988, Dr. Heinrich advised Jarboe that he could not return to work for approximately three months. That same day Jarboe advised Friedman of his prognosis. Friedman Jarboe's last performance evaluation on September 8, 1987, was extremely favorable. Jarboe's next evaluation was scheduled for July 1988, but was never conducted since he was on medical leave until September when Landmark fired him. Dr. Heinrich did not medically release Jarboe to return to work until December 7, 1988.

responded by informing Jarboe that she would have to replace him.

On September 6, 1990, Jarboe filed a complaint against Landmark for damages resulting from his unjust dismissal in breach of his oral one-year contract of employment. On November 13, 1992, the trial court granted Landmark's motion for summary judgment.

DISCUSSION AND DECISION
I. Standard of Review

When reviewing the propriety of a grant of summary judgment we apply the same standard applicable to the trial court. Summary judgment is proper only if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Rosi v. Business Corp. (1992), Ind.App., 601 N.E.2d 408, 410; Ind.Trial Rule 56(C). In determining whether there is a genuine issue of material fact, we accept as true all facts alleged by the nonmovant, consider the pleadings and evidence sanctioned by T.R. 56(C) and designated to the court (without determining weight or credibility), construe all evidence in favor of the nonmovant, and resolve all doubts as to the existence of a material issue against the movant. Id.

II. Enforceable Oral Contract?

Jarboe first contends that the trial court erred in finding that his oral contract of employment was unenforceable under Indiana's Statute of Frauds. Specifically, Jarboe contends that the term of his last employment contract was from July 1988 to July 1989, and thus it could have been performed in less than 365 days. Therefore, he argues the Statute of Frauds is inapplicable and his oral contract is enforceable.

IND.CODE 32-2-1-1 provides:

No action shall be brought in any of the following cases: ....

Fifth. Upon any agreement that is not to be performed within one (1) year from the making thereof....

Unless the promise, contract or agreement upon which such action shall be brought, or some memorandum or note thereof, shall be in writing, and signed by the party to be charged therewith, or by some person thereunto by him lawfully authorized....

Under the Statute of Frauds, contracts which cannot be performed within one year must be in writing and signed by the party sought to be charged in order to be enforceable. Mehling v. Dubois County Farm Bureau (1992), Ind.App., 601 N.E.2d 5, 6. A contract of employment for exactly one calendar year is not within the Statute of Frauds. Holcomb & Hoke Manufacturing Co. v. Younge (1937), 103 Ind.App. 439, 8 N.E.2d 426. A contract of employment which is to extend beyond one year is within the Statute of Frauds. Id. Thus, a contract for one year and one day is within the Statute of Frauds. Id.

In the present case, Jarboe stated that the term of his oral employment contract with Landmark was from July 1988 to July 1989. However, he also stated that in July 1989 his employment contract would automatically be extended by a year if he received a satisfactory performance evaluation, or by thirty to sixty days if he received an unsatisfactory performance evaluation. Because Jarboe's employment contract was at least for one year and thirty days, it was within the Statute of Frauds and required a writing to be enforceable. The trial court did not err in finding that Jarboe's contract was unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds. Thus, Jarboe's claim would initially be barred under the Statute of Frauds.

III. Promissory Estoppel

Jarboe also contends that even if his oral contract is unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds that Landmark is promissorily estopped from discharging him before his medical leave expired. Jarboe argues that Landmark should be estopped because Landmark promised he could take a leave of absence for as long as necessary, assured him that h...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Wright v. Associated Ins. Companies Inc.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • July 21, 1994
    ...under the statute of frauds may be enforceable under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. See Jarboe v. Landmark Community Newspapers of Indiana, Inc., 625 N.E.2d 1291, 1295 (Ind.Ct.App.1993). Scott's alleged oral promise of employment might be enforceable under the doctrine of promissory e......
  • Creative Demos, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., IP 91-1256C B/F.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of Indiana)
    • February 7, 1997
    ...or forbearance, and (4) injustice can be avoided only by the enforcement of the promise." Jarboe v. Landmark Community Newspapers of Indiana, Inc., 625 N.E.2d 1291, 1295 (Ind. App. 1 Dist.1993) aff'd in part, rev'd on different grounds in part, 644 N.E.2d 118 (Ind.1995). The reason for the ......
  • Jarboe v. Landmark Community Newspapers of Indiana, Inc.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Indiana
    • December 15, 1994
    ...doctrine, the trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants. The Court of Appeals reversed. Jarboe v. Landmark Community Newspapers (1993), Ind.App., 625 N.E.2d 1291. The summary judgment proceeding presents the following assertions of fact. The plaintiff was hired by the defendan......
  • Wior v. Anchor Industries, Inc., 82A01-9406-CV-203
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • October 25, 1994
    ...65 Ill.Dec. 143, 148, 440 N.E.2d 998, 1003), dissent adopted in part, 511 N.E.2d 1024, 1025. See also, Jarboe v. Landmark Community Newspapers (1993), Ind.App., 625 N.E.2d 1291, 1295 (oral promises in regard to employment which are unenforceable under Statute of Frauds may nonetheless be en......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT