Blinn v. Beatrice Community Hospital & Health Center

Nebraska Court of Appeals · 2005 · Contracts

13 Neb. Ct. App. 459 (2005)

Updated July 19, 2026

ContractsEmployment contractsStatute of fraudsPromissory estoppelSummary judgmentat-will employmentoral employment agreementemployment until retirement

Facts

Blinn began working for Beatrice in 1993 as an at-will employee. In 2002, after receiving a job offer from a Kansas hospital, he approached Beatrice seeking job security before deciding whether to leave; according to Blinn, his supervisor told him Beatrice had at least five more years of work for him and also assured him he could stay until he retired. Blinn rejected the Kansas offer, which his evidence indicated would have allowed him to work until retirement. Beatrice terminated his employment in February 2003, about 6 months later.

Issue

Whether summary judgment for Beatrice was proper when the record contained evidence that Beatrice orally promised Blinn employment for at least five years or until he chose to retire, and whether such alleged promises were barred by the statute of frauds or too indefinite to support contract modification or promissory estoppel.

Rule

An oral employment agreement is outside Nebraska's one-year statute of frauds if, by its terms, it is capable of being performed within one year from the date it was made. Under Nebraska pleading rules, issues not raised in the pleadings but supported by evidence received without objection are treated as if raised in the pleadings by implied consent. Oral representations may constitute a promise sufficient to modify at-will employment, and promissory estoppel requires a definite promise reasonably expected to induce action or forbearance, actual inducement, detriment, and a need to enforce the promise to avoid injustice.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Omaha, Dana Morales worked as an at-will facilities coordinator for Prairie Crest Medical Group. When Dana received another offer, her manager orally told her, "Stay here until you decide to retire," and Dana declined the other job. Eight months later, Prairie Crest fired Dana and argues the oral promise is void under the statute of frauds.

How should a court rule on the statute of frauds issue at the summary judgment stage, assuming evidence supports Dana's version?

Explanation. Under the majority opinion, the one-year provision bars only oral agreements that by their terms cannot be performed within one year from the making. A promise of employment until the employee chooses to retire is capable of performance within one year because the employee could choose to retire within that period. Therefore, the statute of frauds does not justify summary judgment on those facts. (Derived from Blinn v. Beatrice Community Hospital & Health Center (n.d.).)