Vaidyanathan v. Seagate US LLC, et al., No. 11-1799 (8th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff brought suit against Seagate, alleging a violation of Minnesota Statutes section 181.64, false statements as inducement to entering employment, and a common law claim of promissory estoppel. On appeal, Seagate argued, among other things, that the district court submitted an erroneous jury instruction. Plaintiff cross-appealed, arguing that if a new trial was ordered on the statutory claim, his promissory estoppel claim should likewise be retried. The court concluded that the district court erred in instructing the jury, and thus the court reversed. The court vacated the order dismissing the promissory estoppel claim and remanded for a new trial on both claims. The court also vacated the order granting attorneys' fees.
Court Description: Civil case. In action alleging violation of Minnesota statute forbidding false statements as inducement to entering employment, the district court's instructions were erroneous because they did not properly instruct the jury that the employer must know that its representations to the applicant were false; in light of the reversal, the district court's order dismissing plaintiff's promissory estoppel claim must also be reversed; award of attorneys' fees to plaintiff is reversed. Judge Smith, dissenting.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.