Florida judge dismisses fraud lawsuit against DNC

[Jim Lane]

100. You ask, "Do I have that right?" I think not but I'm not sure.

First, I appreciate your at least asking if you've correctly stated my argument. I'm really sick of all the straw men here.

As to your question, though, I don't completely understand. You brought in a reference to "fiduciary injury". An employer making a hiring decision (like your hypothetical Politician and his PAC) doesn't owe a fiduciary duty to any of the applicants, so that confuses me.

Another point is that there's no fraud claim when someone changes their mind. If the Politician has decided not to employ Jeff Doe, and so informs the applicant, and then later decides to hire Doe after all, that's not fraud. Fraud requires a misstatement as to a matter of fact. (Depending on the circumstances, there might be a claim for breach of contract, but that's a different issue.)

I gather that your hypothetical is that, at the time of hiring the applicant, the Politician knew perfectly well that he had already signed up Jeff Doe to be the supervisor. Nevertheless, to induce the applicant to accept the job, the Politician just flat-out lied to the applicant about it. In that case, the elements of fraud appear to be present. The Politician made a representation to the applicant concerning a matter of fact, the representation was false, the Politician knew it was false, the Politician also knew that the applicant disliked Doe and would rely on the representation in deciding to accept the job, the applicant did so rely, and the applicant accepted the job. That seems to me to make out a case of fraud. Of course, the Politician could contest these points. For example, suppose the Politician alleges, and the court or the jury finds, that the applicant said, "I don't like Doe, and I hope you don't hire him, but I'm excited about this PAC and I'll take the job with or without Doe." In that case there was no reliance and the applicant would lose.

Let's assume that all the facts set forth above are found in the applicant's favor. He still has the problem that courts are leery about letting chains of causation get out of hand. If the applicant alleges that he spent money to move across country to come to Washington and work for the PAC, and is now quitting and moving back because he's discovered that he'd be supervised by Doe, then my offhand reaction, without doing any research, is that the applicant would be able to recover those out-of-pocket moving expenses. The opportunity cost of not having taken some other job would be murkier. It's conceivable to me that a court would give him relief on that score as well, but it's also conceivable that a court would award him his moving expenses but deny him the rest on the grounds that his other claims were too speculative.

I'm not clear on what any of this has to do with the decision in the DNC case.