In early September 1993, plaintiff received a phone call from Ed Iwinski about a job opportunity with his (defendant) optical company. At that time, plaintiff was working as a store manager for LensCrafters. Iwinski, who apparently had been offered the job of chief operating officer (COO) for defendant, told plaintiff that he was not yet part of the decision-making process on hiring, but would forward plaintiff’s name to the defendant. The next day defendant’s eastern regional manager, Sue Opahle, called plaintiff for an interview for an area manager’s position. On September 15, 1993, Opahle interview plaintiff, who believed that Iwinski was effectively Opahle’s boss and the COO of defendant. On September 18, plaintiff called Opahle to inquire about the status of his application. Opahle offered him the job of area manager for half of North Carolina and some stores in Florida and Kentucky. She discussed salary and relocation. Opahle described the terms of employment over the phone and promised to send a confirming letter and employee packet in two days. Plaintiff told Opahle that he accepted the position provisionally, and if he changed his mind, he would notify her within two days. When plaintiff did not receive the packet on September 20, he called defendant to inquire. Someone in the office called plaintiff back, said the packet was in the mail, and reassured him that the deal was finalized. On September 21, plaintiff gave LensCrafters his two-week notice of resignation. LensCrafters attempted to keep plaintiff in its employment with an offer of a raise, but plaintiff declined. When plaintiff received the packet a few days later, it contained two shortcomings, which he called to defendant’s attention. Plaintiff received a corrected letter, which asked that he sign and return it as acceptance of the terms of employment. Plaintiff signed this letter, but never returned it because he had started having reservations about his employment with defendant. On about September 30, Iwinski informed defendant’s vice president of human resources, Fran Scibora, that he was declining the COO position. Scibora, Opahle, and defendant’s chief financial officer, Dominic Sblendorio, immediately contact plaintiff, asking for his reaction to the fact that Iwinski would not be working for defendant. Plaintiff responded that Iwinski’s absence did not change his decision to accept the job. When plaintiff asked if Iwinski’s departure affect plaintiff’s job, Scibora assured him that it would not. Gorham’s last day of work for LensCrafters was October 1. On October 3, he flew to Minneapolis for defendant’s national sales meeting. On October 4, Scibora, Opahle, and Sblendorio met with plaintiff for what they called a “getting to know you” meeting. They asked him for the completed employee forms, and plaintiff turned in all the forms except the acceptance letter. The meeting then turned into another interview in which they review plaintiff’s skills and aptitudes. Scibora finally told plaintiff that he did not possess the skills necessary for the area manager position. The group also met with and terminated three other employees who were hired at Iwinski’s suggestion. In a letter to plaintiff dated October 15, defendant explained that it had terminated his position because Iwinski had declined the job as COO, because of a “change in the requirements of the Area Manger’s position” and because plaintiff’s skills and abilities did not satisfy the requirements for the new direction in which the company is going.”

1. What would plaintiff use as the basis for his suit? Who should prevail and why?

2. Highlight the pertinent facts; Defendant is optical company

3. Identify the issue of law and/or fact posed by the case problem;

4. What should be the decision in the case?

5. The reasoning for such decision.