Legal Question in Employment Law in Oregon

Re: unrightful termination

Generally speaking, the employment relationship is presumed to be at-will. This means either the employee or the employer can terminate the relationship at any time with or without notice, reason, cause or justification.

However there are exceptions. Mass layoffs can require notice under federal laws (See Workers Adjustment Retraining Notification Act or "WARN" at 29 USC 2101 et seq.) Union members are entitled to just cause terminations. Public employees have union rights and/or certain Due Process rights and may be entitled to a Loudermill termination hearing. Finally, private sector, non-unionized employees may have an express "for cause" employment contract (verbal or written) or a contract implied in fact (verbal or written). Regardless of the existence of any contract, employers may still not terminate an employee based on an illicit factor, e.g. based on a classification protected by federal, state or local law.

The issue raised by the question above is whether the employer's statement of intention to turn over the department for 60 days constitutes an express for cause employment contract such that the employer is restricted from discharging at-will?

I don't believe so. The theory has two problems. One is ambiguity. What did the employer mean when it said it would turn the department over for 60 months? Was the employer promising longevity? It's not clear and the main element of a contract may be lacking -- mutual assent or a meeting of the minds.

A second and more daunting problem is lack of consideration. I don't see that you gave up anything in exchange for the employer's "promise." In other words, the employer's statement looks more like a unilateral assertion unsupported by adequate consideration rather than a bargained for exchange or deal (or enforceable contract). Did you continue to work there in reliance upon the "promise"? Perhaps an equitable theory of promissory estoppel might be available, but the promise most likely is not specific enough and courts generally don't like to apply this theory in the employment context.