Business Law 11th Edition by Kenneth Clarkson,Roger LeRoy Miller,Gaylord Jentz,Frank Cross

Exercise 10

Ardito v. City of Providence
United States District Court, District of Rhode Island, 2003. 263 F.Supp.2d 358.
• Background and Facts In 2001, the city of Providence, Rhode Island, decided to begin hiring police officers to fill vacancies in its police department. Because only individuals who had graduated from the Providence Police Academy were eligible, the city also decided to conduct two training sessions, the "60th and 61st Police Academies." To be admitted, an applicant had to pass a series of tests and be deemed qualified by members of the department after an interview. The applicants judged most qualified were sent a letter informing them that they had been selected to attend the academy if they successfully completed a medical checkup and a psychological examination. The letter for the applicants to the 61st Academy, dated October 15, stated that it was "a conditional offer of employment." Meanwhile, a new chief of police, Dean Esserman, decided to revise the selection process, which caused some of those who had received the letter to be rejected. Derek Ardito and thirteen other newly rejected applicants- who had all completed the examinations-filed a suit in a federal district court against the city, seeking a halt to the 61st Academy unless they were allowed to attend. They alleged that, among other things, the city was in breach of contract.
ERNEST C. TORRES, Chief District Judge.
* * * *
* * * [T]he October 15 letter * * * is a classic example of an offer to enter into a unilateral contract. The October 15 letter expressly stated that it was a "conditional offer of employment" and the message that it conveyed was that the recipient would be admitted into the 61st Academy if he or she successfully completed the medical and psychological examinations, requirements that the city could not lawfully impose unless it was making a conditional offer of employment. [Emphasis added.]
Moreover, the terms of that offer were perfectly consistent with what applicants had been told when they appeared [for their interviews]. At that time, [Police Major Dennis] Simoneau informed them that, if they "passed" the [interviews], they would be offered a place in the academy provided that they also passed medical and psychological examinations.
The October 15 letter also was in marked contrast to notices sent to applicants by the city at earlier stages of the selection process. Those notices merely informed applicants that they had completed a step in the process and remained eligible to be considered for admission into the academy. Unlike the October 15 letter, the prior notices did not purport to extend a "conditional offer" of admission.
The plaintiffs accepted the city's offer of admission into the academy by satisfying the specified conditions. Each of the plaintiffs submitted to and passed lengthy and intrusive medical and psychological examinations. In addition, many of the plaintiffs, in reliance on the City's offer, jeopardized their standing with their existing employers by notifying the employers of their anticipated departure, and some plaintiffs passed up opportunities for other employment.
* * * *
The city argues that there is no contract between the parties because the plaintiffs have no legally enforceable right to employment. The city correctly points out that, even if the plaintiffs graduate from the Academy and there are existing vacancies in the department, they would be required to serve a one-year probationary period during which they could be terminated without cause * * *. That argument misses the point. The contract that the plaintiffs seek to enforce is not a contract that they will be appointed as permanent Providence police officers; rather, it is a contract that they would be admitted to the Academy if they passed the medical and psychological examinations.
• Decision and Remedy The court issued an injunction to prohibit the city from conducting the 61st Police Academy unless the plaintiffs were included. The October 15 letter was a unilateral offer that the plaintiffs had accepted by passing the required medical and psychological examinations.
• What If the Facts Were Different Suppose that the October 15 letter had used the phrase "potential offer of employment" instead of using the word "conditional." Would the court in this case still have considered the letter to be a unilateral contract Why or why not
• The Legal Environment Dimension Why did the court order the city to stop the 61 st Police Academy unless the plaintiffs were included