In Batayneh v. Reunited Clothing, LLC, No. 152829/2025, 2025 WL 2682960 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County Sep. 18, 2025), the court, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s promissory estoppel claim.
This decision illustrates the difficulty of asserting common-law claims in the “at will” employment context.
Specifically:
Plaintiff claims Reunited hired her as a production associate in December of 2023. On February 8, 2024, Plaintiff began working remotely due to her pregnancy and, on XX/XX/2024, gave birth. Plaintiff took pregnancy leave and, in September of 2024, informed Defendants that she would return to work on November 1, 2024. While Plaintiff was on leave, her sister, Hilda, who is allegedly a co-founder, part-owner, and Chief Creative Officer of Reunited, accused Kesselman, who is the Chief Executive Officer of Reunited, of committing financial improprieties and fraud. Allegedly, because of Hilda’s accusations, Kesselman told Plaintiff not to return from pregnancy leave. Plaintiff now sues Defendants for retaliation in violation of Labor Law § 740 and alleges promissory estoppel. Defendants move to dismiss. …
To adequately allege promissory estoppel, a party must show (1) a promise that is sufficiently clear and unambiguous; (2) reasonable reliance on the promise by a party; and (3) injury caused by the reliance (see Condor Funding, LLC v 176 Broadway Owners Corp., 147 AD3d 409, 411 [1st Dept 2017]). When an at-will employee is terminated, the employee generally does not have a claim for promissory estoppel because there can be no reasonable reliance as to employment prospects for at-will employees (see, e.g. Presler v Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of Protestant Episcopal Church in US, 113 AD3d 409, 409 [1st Dept 2014]; Arias v Women in Need, Inc., 274 AD2d 353, 354 [1st Dept 2000]). “[A]bsent an agreement establishing a fixed duration, an employment relationship is presumed to be a hiring at will, terminable at any time by either party” (Gootee v Global Credit Services, LLC, 139 AD3d 551, 553 [1st Dept 2016] quoting Sabetay v Sterling Drug, Inc., 69 NY2d 329, 333 [1987]).
Here, there is no alleged agreement that Plaintiff was employed for a fixed duration, nor are there any specific, non-conclusory, and factual allegations to rebut the employment at-will doctrine. Given Plaintiff’s failure to allege any facts that she was not an at-will employee, she could not have reasonably relied on that her job would remain available for purposes of promissory estoppel. Plaintiff’s argument that there should be discovery prior to any determination that she is an at-will employee ignores her own pleading requirements – namely that she allege her causes of action with factual specificity. In any event, Plaintiff does not need discovery as she should be in possession of sufficient information to allege facts supporting her contention that she was not an at-will employee (see also Holahan v 488 Performance Group, Inc., 140 AD3d 414, 414-15 [1st Dept 2016]).
Based on this, the court held that plaintiff’s promissory estoppel claim is predicated on conclusory allegations without sufficient factual specificity.