The requirement of additional consideration is not an absolute prerequisite to a contract of permanent employment, rather it is a rule of construction. Absent additional consideration, parties can still create permanent employment contracts by making clear their intent to do so. Pine River, 333 N.W.2d at 629; Dumas v. Kessler Maguire Funeral Home, Inc., 380 N.W.2d 544, 547 (Minn.Ct.App. 1986). Here, plaintiff did not provide any consideration in addition to his services as an employee such that he could benefit from this rule of construction. Plaintiff argues that he supplied extra consideration by declining other job offers while working for defendant, but simply foregoing other work opportunities by accepting one job over another does not constitute additional consideration.
" Id. at 626. See Dumas v. Kessler Maguire Funeral Home, Inc., 380 N.W.2d 544, 546-47 (Minn.App. 1986). An employer's general statements of personnel policy do not meet the contractual requirements for an offer.
Fox fails to explain, however, how these events supply evidence that T-H made a clear and definite promise to her of continued employment terminable only for cause. "A long term of service and good performance review do not, by themselves, justify an implied contract term for continued employment." Corum, 628 F. Supp. at 715; see also Dumas v. Kessler Maguire Funeral Home, Inc., 380 N.W.2d 544, 546 (Minn.Ct.App. 1986). Fox's successful past performance thus is not evidence of a clear and definite promise of continued employment terminable only for cause.
Even if he had, however, the rule in Minnesota is that general statements regarding job permanence and job security are not definite offers. Pine River State Bank, 333 N.W.2d at 627; Harris v. Mardan Business Sys., Inc., 421 N.W.2d 350, 354 (Minn.App. 1988). For example, Minnesota courts have found, as a matter of law, that the following statements were not offers: employee told he had a great future with the company and to consider his job a career situation, Degen v. Investors Diversified Servs., Inc., 260 Minn. 424, 110 N.W.2d 863, 865-66 (1961); employee handbook stated that "[employer] seeks to ensure the job security of all salaried employees," Lewis, 389 N.W.2d at 883; employee repeatedly told by employer that they would retire together, Dumas v. Kessler Maguire Funeral Home, 380 N.W.2d 544, 547 (Minn.App. 1986); employee told that employer would always take care of him, and that he was a lifetime sales representative, Aberman v. Malden Mills Indus., 414 N.W.2d 769, 771-72 (Minn.App. 1987). The statements made to Piekarski were no more specific than these representations.
Connexus's statements in this case are similar to statements in other cases that have been determined to be insufficient to overcome the presumption of at-will employment. See, e.g., Cedarstrand v. Lutheran Bhd., 263 Minn. 520, 523, 533-34, 117 N.W.2d 213, 216, 222 (1962) (concluding that employer's promise to give employees "job[s] as long as they wished until retirement" was insufficient to modify at-will employment); Aberman, 414 N.W.2d at 770-72 (concluding that employer's alleged promise, characterized as, "I will always take care of you, you will always be with [the company]," was insufficient to modify at-will employment); Dumas v. Kessler Maguire Funeral Home, Inc., 380 N.W.2d 544, 548 (Minn. App. 1986) (concluding that supervisor's statement to employee that they would "retire together" was insufficient as matter of law to constitute agreement that employee could be discharged only for cause). Newland alleges that Connexus "assured" him that he would remain the chief executive officer until at least age sixty-five.
In fact, Jones's alleged statement is similar to statements Minnesota courts have consistently deemed insufficient to overcome the presumption of at-will employment. See, e.g., Cedarstrand v. Lutheran Bhd., 263 Minn. 520, 523, 117 N.W.2d 213, 216 (1962) (concluding that employer's promise to give employees "job[s] as long as they wished until retirement" was insufficient to create more than at-will employment); Aberman, 414 N.W.2d at 771-772 (concluding that employer's promise that "I will always take care of you, you will always be with Malden" was insufficient to establish permanent-employment contract); Dumas v. Kessler Maguire Funeral Home, Inc., 380 N.W.2d 544, 547 (Minn.App. 1986) (concluding that supervisor's statement to employee that they would "retire together" was insufficient as a matter of law to constitute agreement that employee could be discharged only for cause). Folken's alleged statement exhorting Gunderson to "stick with me and I will make you rich when we sell the company" is similarly insufficient to establish a basis for Gunderson's breach-of-employment-contract claim. Alternatively, Gunderson argues that he provided additional consideration beyond his employment services sufficient to create an implied contract for permanent employment by personally guaranteeing ACP's credit line and by departing from his previous employment to devote himself primarily to ACP.
Id. p. 629. Neither an employer's statement of policy nor its practices will turn an at-will contract of employment into one requiring good cause for discharge. Dumas v. Kessler Maguire Funeral Home, 380 N.W.2d 544 (Minn.App. 1986), Pine River, 333 N.W.2d at 626. The Minnesota Supreme Court has "not read an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing into employment contracts."
Simply maintaining the "status quo" by continuing to work for an employer will not satisfy the detrimental reliance element of promissory estoppel. Waters, 946 F. Supp. 2d at 882; accord Dumas v. Kessler & Maguire Funeral Home, Inc., 380 N.W.2d 544, 548 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986); Hanks v. Hubbard Broad., Inc., 493 N.W.2d 302, 309 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992) ("We recognize that where an at-will employee merely continues to work and does not claim to have turned down any offers of employment based upon an employer's representations, no reliance will be found.").
; Dumas v. Kessler & Maguire Funeral Home, Inc. , 380 N.W.2d 544, 548 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986) (holding that continued employment with funeral home was insufficient to satisfy reliance in promissory estoppel claim where employee did not claim he turned down other offers); cf.Eklund v. Vincent Brass & Aluminum Co. , 351 N.W.2d 371, 378 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984) (finding sufficient reliance shown where employee turned down actual job offer from another employer in reliance on employer's promise). Hull's pleading does not meet the standard for the equitable claim of promissory estoppel in the employment context.
In Dumas v. Kessler & Maguire Funeral Home, Inc., the court found that the plaintiff did not sufficiently allege detrimental reliance because he "merely continued to work for the funeral home" in reliance on a promise by his supervisor that they would "retire together." 380 N.W.2d 544, 548 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). He did not allege that he turned down any other offers of employment.