MD Company Counters Resignation with Offer that Does not Materialize

[miles5454]

My daughter works for a corporation in Maryland as the receptionist. When she submitted her resignation to her supervisor, her supervisor asked her how much would it take to get her to stay. She advised her supervisor of the amount and continued to make plans to leave when her 2 weeks were up. During this time period (the day after she submitted her resignation), a V.P. from another department approached her and said, I hear you are leaving, I could use you in my department and can pay you what you are asking. To make a long story short, my daughter was told that a position was being created, it would pay the amount that she was asking, they couldn't promise her a date, but said it would be by the end of May. After much consideration my daughter rescinded her acceptance of the job offer made to her by the other company and agreed to stay on at her current company in anticipation of starting in her new position at the end of May. She has now been told that the position being created was not approved by HR and therefore they can not give her that position.

Does she have any options available to her? Does the company owe her anything as they had her pass up on a better paying opportunity by suggesting they had something even better for her and not following through?

I apologize for the length but wanted to make sure you had all the information. She does have an instant message communication saved where her supervisor says she can guarantee her the position and the pay, but not a time frame. Please note this same supervisor is leaving for another position herself at the end of the month.

I appreciate any and all helpful responses.
vjm

[ElleMD]

It is very iffy that the IM without the details would hold as a true contract in MD. This whole scenario would fall under "deterimental reliance", but the fact that she didn't have the details or firm offer for the job with her current employer may make this hard to pursue.

In MD there are 4 prongs that must be met in order to have a valid claim for Detrimental Reliance (Restatement (Second)
of Contracts 90(1) (1979))

1. a clear and definite promise;
2. where the promisor has a reasonable expectation
that the offer will induce action or forbearance on
the part of the promisee;
3. which does induce actual and reasonable action
or forbearance by the promisee; and
4. causes a detriment which can only be avoided by
the enforcement of the promise.

The somewhat vague offer of a job that would come about sometime in May would not meet the first prong. In the Konover Property case, the court held that a verbal and unofficial promise was not sufficient to meet the first prong.

She can always speak to a lawyer, but I wouldn't count on this being a slam dunk. MD is fairly particular when it comes to contracts.