This paper addresses two distinct legal questions. The first examines whether promissory estoppel applies to a case in which an employee relocated his family based on repeated assurances of employment, only to have the offer effectively withdrawn. The analysis considers whether a binding promise existed, whether that promise foreseeably induced detrimental action, and what remedies are appropriate. The second question evaluates the 1988 Secretary of Health and Human Services interpretation of Title X of the Public Health Service Act, which restricted federal family planning funds from programs that discuss abortion. The paper concludes that the regulatory interpretation was both a permissible administrative construction of the statute and consistent with constitutional guarantees.
Promissory estoppel involves a situation in which a promisor should reasonably expect their promise to induce action or forbearance on the part of the promisee, and the promise does in fact induce such action or forbearance, such that injustice can only be avoided by enforcement of the promise. Promissory estoppel differs substantially from other forms of contract enforcement because it focuses on whether one party has detrimentally relied on a promise made by the other party.
It certainly appears that Hernandez had a promise of employment from UPS. He received a written job offer and was assured by UPS supervisors that the job was his. Furthermore, after moving his family to El Paso, Texas, and being told that his start date would be delayed, he was again assured that UPS would be his employer. He worked at UPS for three days, attending orientation and performing work from home. Given these circumstances, there is no doubt that UPS promised him a job — doing so several times and through a variety of methods.
The next question is whether the promise would foreseeably induce action on Hernandez's part. UPS was aware that Hernandez lived in a different town and would have to relocate if he accepted the offer. A promise of employment is precisely the kind of promise that induces significant action. Moreover, when Hernandez arrived in El Paso, UPS continued to assure him that he had a job, going so far as to have him participate in an orientation and complete work from home. Those actions made the promise appear more credible and are the types of assurances upon which a person should reasonably be able to rely.
"Determines available remedies for broken employment promise"
Title X of the Public Health Service Act provides federal funds for family planning services, but exempts programs where abortion is a method of family planning. In 1988, the Secretary of Health and Human Services interpreted this exemption to apply to programs that merely discuss abortion, even if those programs do not directly provide abortion services. Several Title X grantees and physicians supervising Title X funds challenged the validity of these regulations and sought an injunction against their implementation.
It is important to recognize that administrative agencies and their officials have significant latitude when interpreting the laws under which they operate. They have the authority to issue interpretive rules. While such rules do not carry the force of law, courts interpreting regulatory statutes frequently consider agency interpretations and give them substantial weight. Additionally, legislative rules created in accordance with Administrative Procedure Act (APA) procedures and consistent with the Constitution can have binding legal force on courts.
"Evaluates constitutional consistency of 1988 funding regulations"
You’re 59% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.