 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Wunderlin v. Western Michigan University Board of Trustees6/29/2004
UNPUBLISHED
Plaintiff appeals by right from a judgment dismissing plaintiff's wrongful discharge and due process claims after defendant moved for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (C)(10). We affirm.
This Court reviews a trial court's grant of summary disposition de novo. Beaudrie v Henderson, 465 Mich 124, 129; 631 NW2d 308 (2001). A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) is properly granted when the party opposing the motion "has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." MCR 2.116(C)(8); Radtke v Everett, 442 Mich 368, 373; 505 NW2d 155 (1993). A motion under this subrule tests the legal sufficiency of a claim by the pleadings alone, unsupported by any other documentary evidence. Simko v Blake, 448 Mich 648, 654; 532 NW2d 842 (1995). A motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) should only be granted when the claim is so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could possibly justify a right of recovery. Wade v Dep't of Corrections, 439 Mich 158, 163; 483 NW2d 26 (1992); Abb Paint Finishing, Inc v National Union Fire Ins, 223 Mich App 559, 561; 567 NW2d 456 (1997).
In evaluating a motion under MCR 2.116(C)(10), we consider all the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Where the proffered evidence fails to establish a genuine issue regarding any material fact, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 119-120; 597 NW2d 817 (1999).
Plaintiff first claims that the trial court erred in granting summary disposition because the evidence demonstrated that defendant lacked just cause to terminate his employment.
Specifically, plaintiff admits that he violated certain aspects of the University Procurement Card Policy but contends that defendant has selectively enforced the policy, and therefore is precluded from terminating plaintiff for such violations. We disagree.
Ordinarily, where an employer has agreed that an employee may only be discharged for cause, the trier of fact decides as a matter of fact whether the employee was discharged for cause. Toussaint v Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan, 408 Mich 579, 620-621; 292 NW2d 880 (1980). Without substituting its opinion for that of the employer, generally the trier of fact may determine whether the employee actually committed the specific misconduct at issue, whether there was pretext or good cause for the termination, and whether the employer selectively applied the rules in terminating the employee. Toussaint, supra at 622-624.
Viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the evidence established that plaintiff had been authorized to execute certain multiple-swipe transactions above the $1,000 limit established by the University Procurement Card Policy, or that at a minimum, his former supervisor and the purchasing department had acquiesced in the practice; that plaintiff's purchase of the disputed tools constituting the basis for plaintiff's termination was not within the scope of that exception; that the tools purchase at issue also violated defendant's policy requiring written bids for purchases over $2,500; and that plaintiff failed to follow specific instructions to prepare an inventory of existing tools before purchasing the new tools. The evidence further established that the violations of the written policies at issue constituted insubordination, subjecting plaintiff to discipline up to and including termination after review of the circumstances by the human resources department, and that plaintiff was not terminated until after such review was conducted by the human resources department. The evidence also establish
Page 1 2 Michigan Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|