AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Plaintiff, an employee, alleged that he had an oral employment contract with the Defendants, which promised him retirement benefits amounting to 70% of his highest salary per month upon retirement or discharge. The Defendants failed to make these promised retirement payments. Additionally, it was alleged that the Defendants had promised to set up an annuity to fund these obligations, a promise reiterated over time, but failed to do so. The breach of contract claim centers on the Defendants' failure to make the promised retirement payments (para 4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that there was an oral contract for employment promising retirement benefits and that the Defendants failed to make these payments upon his retirement, constituting a breach of contract.
• Defendants: Contended that the Plaintiff's claim was barred by the statute of frauds because the alleged contract was not in writing. They also argued that the Plaintiff's claim was time-barred by the statute of limitations, interpreting the complaint as alleging a breach of an agreement made in 1995 to establish an annuity for the Plaintiff's retirement (paras 2-4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the statute of frauds applies to an oral contract for employment promising retirement benefits for an indefinite period.
• Whether the Plaintiff's claim for breach of an oral employment contract was barred by the statute of limitations.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's dismissal of the Plaintiff's claim for breach of contract (para 6).

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges Zachary A. Ives, Jennifer L. Attrep, and J. Miles Hanisee, unanimously reversed the district court's decision. The Court disagreed with the Defendants' argument that the case was analogous to Kestenbaum, which they claimed only addressed whether conduct could transform at-will employment into an implied contract. Instead, the Court found that Kestenbaum did indeed contemplate the applicability of the statute of frauds to oral employment contracts not intended to be performed within a year, thus supporting the Plaintiff's position that the statute of frauds did not bar his claim (para 2-3). Furthermore, the Court concluded that the Plaintiff's claim was not time-barred by the statute of limitations, as the breach occurred in 2017 when the Defendants failed to make the promised retirement payments, and the suit was brought within the four-year limitation period for unwritten contracts in 2020 (para 4-5).