Potential Claims of Darla DiNapoli Memorandum

Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Memorandum about AP’s Case against Potential Claims of Darla DiNapoli
TO: Alexis Partners (AP)
SUBJECT: Strength of AP’s Case against Potential Claims of Darla DiNapoli
Alexis Partners (AP) has a case against the potential claims of a former employee, Darla DiNapoli. The ex-employee claims that AP employed him from another company called PW Houlihan (PW-H). After nine months of service, AP fired DiNapoli, and the former employee threatened to sue AP for promissory estoppel and fraudulent inducement. In the letter, DiNapoli is willing to discuss a settlement with AP before filing a lawsuit. According to Tony Bryan, a partner at the law firm, DiNapoli’s scenario is strikingly similar to another case involving Laduzinski v. Alvarez & Marsal Taxand LLC. In the case, the plaintiff, Ludazinski, lost at the trial court but won after an appeal. The following memo provides legal advice to AP concerning the case against the potential claims of Darla DiNapoli based on facts from Laduzinski v. Alvarez & Marsal Taxand LLC. The memo suggests the most appropriate decision concerning preparation for settlement discussions.
Description of Perez’s Statements
The case facing AP involving a former employee, Darla DiNapoli, is similar to Laduzinski v. Alvarez & Marsal Taxand LLC. Therefore, the current case is interpreted using Laduzinski v. Alvarez & Marsal Taxand LLC facts. Both the lower court and the court of appeal agreed that the strength of the plaintiff’s claims in Laduzinski v. Alvarez & Marsal Taxand LLC lies in statements made by Ernesto Perez, the managing director and head of Alvarez & Marsal Holdings LLC. Therefore, the correct characterization of the claims made by Perez will help understand the nature and strength of the potential case AP faces from the ex-employee, DiNapoli.
Laduzinski worked at J.P. Morgan but sought to change his workplace to obtain a more favorable position. The plaintiff sent his resume to Alvarez companies seeking an employment opportunity. Alvarez companies director, Perez, contacted Laduzinski and agreed to meet him to discuss a potential employment opportunity. After the initial discussion, Perez seemed not interested in hiring Laduzinski, and Alvarez companies had “a lot of clients and were busy” (Laduzinski v. Alvarez & Marsal Taxand LLC). However, Perez learned from a subsequent meeting that Laduzinski had professional and personal contacts in Miami, Florida, and Perez showed that he was interested in doing business with Laduzinski’s contacts. Perez organized another follow-up meeting where he offered the plaintiff an employment opportunity, insisting that Alvarez Companies are interested in tapping into the plaintiff’s contact pool for prospective clients (Laduzinski v. Alvarez & Marsal Taxand LLC).
The plaintiff attempted to negotiate a 2-year contract with Perez before accepting the new offer at Alvarez companies. The plaintiff indicated that two years would allow him to spend considerable time and energy using his contacts and business to market Alvarez’s companies. However, Perez clarified that they were offering the plaintiff a position of a senior director, where he would be responsible for handling the company’s sizable workload and not procuring clients (Laduzinski v. Alvarez & Marsal Taxand LLC). The plaintiff accepted the offer at an annual compensation of $160,000, quitting his job at J.P. Morgan.
After accepting the contract, Perez asked the plaintiff to compile his professional and personal contacts and hand them over to him. Ladunzinski realized that Perez’s company was not as busy as he claimed. On 7 November 2012, Perez commended Ladunzinski for doing a good job bringing in opportunities for Alvarez. The plaintiff was needed to hand over his relationships for other people in the company to exploit. After the plaintiff had completed Perez’s instructions, he was fired eight days later, on 15 November 2012.
Correct Characterization of Perez’s Statements
Justice Scarpulla characterized Perez’s statements highlighted in the above description to represent the plaintiff’s future responsibilities and expectations at work. Further, that Perez’s initial statements meant the plaintiff would have sufficient work to perform and concluded that the statements made by Perez “were merely non-actionable future statements about his responsibilities and workload under the employment agreement” (Laduzinski v. Alvarez & Marsal Taxand LLC). On the other hand, Justice Acosta characterized Perez’s statements described above as a misrepresentation of the kind of job the plaintiff was hired to perform. Thus, the statements are “center[ed] around the precise nature of plaintiff’s employment with defendants” (Laduzinski v. Alvarez & Marsal Taxand LLC).
The characterization of Perez’s statements by Justices Scarpulla and Acosta is correct. The plaintiff entered an agreement with Alvarez companies through Perez’s managing director. Therefore, Perez spoke on behalf of the company, and his statements insinuated job conditions that the plaintiff would be required to fulfill. Perez indicated that the company had a lot of clients and was busy, and the company was interested in hiring the plaintiff to manage a sizeable workload. Justice Scarpulla’s statement that the plaintiff was hired on the assurance that his employment would be secure agrees with Perez’s claim about managing workload. Therefore, the company failed to fulfill the employment agreement by not giving the plaintiff sufficient workload and firing him.
Also, Justice Acosta’s characterization that Perez misrepresented the nature of the job the plaintiff would perform is correct. From the description section above, it is evident that Perez gave the plaintiff different responsibilities from what he was hired to perform. The plaintiff did not manage a sizeable workload but was asked to surrender his personal and professional contacts to allow other firm members to work with them before being fired.
Does DiNapoli have a Strong Promissory Estoppel Claim against AP?
DiNapoli has a solid promissory estoppel claim against AP. Promissory estoppel refers to a legal position that a promise made by someone to another person can be enforced by the law (Alden). Individuals rely on promissory estoppel to make essential decisions that significantly influence their personal, social, and career lives. Therefore, promissory estoppel is a fundamental consideration in ruling cases where parties have broken promises.
Promissory estoppel stops promisers from failing to fulfill their promises by claiming that they should not be legally enforced. In the United States, promissory estoppel law exists to help individuals that suffer losses because of a promise to recover. The requirements for promissory estoppel include the promisor, the promisee, and the loss the promisee suffers due to the promisor’s unfulfilled promise. Also, there should be sufficiently reasonable evidence that the promisee relied on the promise to make a decision resulting in the loss incurred. Besides, the promisee should demonstrate suffering harm in the form of economic loss because the promiser failed to fulfill their pledge. The court can grant promissory estoppel if it establishes that the only means for ensuring recovery or justice to the promisee is enforcing the promise of compensation for the harm caused (Alden).
The case concerning DiNapoli fulfills the essential components of promissory estoppel highlighted above. First, AP promised DiNapoli an employment opportunity. Second, DiNapoli relied on AP’s promise to choose to quit previous employment and join AP. Third, AP did not fulfill its promise because it gave DiNapoli different responsibilities other than what they agreed. Fourth, AP fired DiNapoli before fulfilling its initial promise of providing a stable workflow. The actions of AP caused DiNapoli to lose his employment, a source of economic income. Therefore, the court may rule in favor of DiNapoli by requiring AP to compensate for the harm caused. AP can consider negotiating a settlement instead of going to court.
Suggested Policies for Companies when Hiring
Companies trying to hire someone from another employer should have an effective hiring policy to govern the hiring process. The hiring policy must document all the requirements for an employment contract. It must highlight a clear job description that the employee will undertake in the firm, and it must show the specific roles and responsibilities that the employee will fulfill for the firm. The hiring policy should also require firms to highlight the nature of employment.
The language used in hiring employees should have no ambiguity, especially concerning the terms the employee is hired on, including whether the employment is short-term or long-term and the expected contract duration. The employment policy language should use specific terms detailing job benefits, extra responsibilities, confidentiality, conflict of interest, resolution of disputes, and the process of termination (Isaksson et al. 713). The information provided above is essential in establishing whether an employer violated an employment promise or not when a fired employee files for promissory estoppel. Firms, such as AP, can also avoid claims that DiNapoli is threatening by strictly following the employment policy. Full implementation of the employment policy provides immunity for firms against accusations of a policy breach.









Works Cited
Alden, Eric. “Promissory Estoppel and the Origins of Contract Law.” Northeastern University Law Review, Vol. 9, No. 1 (2017). Accessed from https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/norester9&div=5&id=&page=
Issakson, Kerstin S., et al. “The Role of the Formal Employment Contract in the Range and Fulfillment of the Psychological Contract: Testing a Layered Model.” European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 9, No. 6 (2010), pp. 696-716. Accessed from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13594320903142617
Laduzinski v. Alvarez & Marsal Taxand LLC, 132 A.D.3d 164, 16 N.Y.S.3d 229, 2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 6646 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015). Accessed from https://casetext.

Place your order
(550 words)

Approximate price: $22

Calculate the price of your order

550 words
We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM
Total price:
The price is based on these factors:
Academic level
Number of pages
Basic features
  • Free title page and bibliography
  • Unlimited revisions
  • Plagiarism-free guarantee
  • Money-back guarantee
  • 24/7 support
On-demand options
  • Writer’s samples
  • Part-by-part delivery
  • Overnight delivery
  • Copies of used sources
  • Expert Proofreading
Paper format
  • 275 words per page
  • 12 pt Arial/Times New Roman
  • Double line spacing
  • Any citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard)

Our guarantees

Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.

Money-back guarantee

You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.

Read more

Zero-plagiarism guarantee

Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.

Read more

Free-revision policy

Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.

Read more

Privacy policy

Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.

Read more

Fair-cooperation guarantee

By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.

Read more
Need assignment help? You can contact our live agent via WhatsApp using +1 718 717 2861

Feel free to ask questions, clarifications, or discounts available when placing an order.
  +1 718 717 2861           + 44 161 818 7126           [email protected]
  +1 718 717 2861         [email protected]