Final answer:
Lena's misrepresentation about the job being long term, which led to Miguel accepting the job and later being laid off, constitutes fraudulent inducement. Despite the employment-at-will doctrine, such an action does not represent a valid or lawful termination. so, option c is the correct answer.
Step-by-step explanation:
The scenario where Lena offers Miguel a job, falsely representing that it will be long term, and Miguel takes the job but is then laid off shortly thereafter can be characterized as fraudulent inducement. This is because Lena intentionally provided false information about the job's duration to persuade Miguel to accept the job offer. Even under the employment-at-will doctrine, which typically allows employers to terminate employment at any time without cause, this case does not fall under valid termination or lawful termination.
Instead, Lena's false representation resulted in a successful lawsuit for fraud by Miguel, indicating that the termination was due to fraudulent inducement and could be seen as a violation of the implied terms of the employment contract, despite the at-will employment policy.