Bloomberg campaign workers lose breach of contract case

These plaintiffs were hired to work on Mike Bloomberg's presidential campaign in 2020. That campaign crashed and burned long before Election Day, however. What the campaign ended prematurely, the campaign stopped paying plaintiffs. They sue for fraudulent inducement and promissory estoppel.

The case is Cordova v. Mike Bloomberg 2020, a summary order issued on September 19. There are 50 plaintiffs in this case. Recall that Bloomberg ran for president in 2020 to take on another New York City businessman, Donald Trump. Bloomberg thought his tenure as New York City mayor were impressive enough to win the Democratic Party nomination. Democratic Party voters rejected Bloomberg and the campaign workers were let go when the campaign ended.

"Plaintiffs allege that Defendants recruited them to the job by promising employment through November 2020, but reneged on that promise when the Campaign dismissed Plaintiffs shortly after Bloomberg withdrew from the race in March of 2020." This case was dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6), which allows the trial court reject any case pre-discovery if it fails to assert a cause of action. The Court of Appeals agrees this case cannot proceed beyond the pleading stage. 

Under the fraudulent inducement and promissory estoppel theory, the plaintiff must show they reasonably relied on a representation or promise to their detriment. The Court of Appeals says plaintiffs cannot assert such a claim because, without an employment contract, New York is an at-will employment state, which means you can be fired or let go at any time for any reason so long as that reason is specifically prohibited by statute.

The Court of Appeals (Leval, Chin and Perez) observes that plaintiffs are reframing their theory of liability, but that effort fails. "Recasting the continued employment claim as a “specific opportunity to work on the general election for the ultimate Democratic nominee” through November 2020, does not avoid the dooming at-will language. Under these circumstances, future promises of continued employment cannot be the basis for Plaintiffs’ fraudulent inducement or promissory estoppel claims." Nor can plaintiffs argue that the campaign modified the at-will status by an oral contractual promise to provide continued employment until November 2020. Not only does the written contract of employment prohibit oral modification, but plaintiffs' offer letters also state they would be at-will employees. 

While a no-oral-modification clause may not count if the plaintiffs can show partial performance of the agreement to modify or when one party has induced the other party to rely on an oral modification, giving rise to promissory estoppel. These exceptions will not save the case, the Court of Appeals says. "Although Plaintiffs allege that they took action as a consequence of the promise of continued employment until November 2020, they point to no conduct that is 'unequivocally referable to the oral modification' or that is 'inconsistent with the agreement as written.'”