 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Linzy v. St. Mary's Medical Center6/4/2002
on because: (1) plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of age or race discrimination based on disparate treatment because she and Lillistierna received the same discipline; (2) plaintiff could not maintain a claim for intentional age discrimination because she failed to establish that defendant's articulated reason for the discipline was a mere pretext for discrimination; (3) plaintiff failed to establish the required elements of race discrimination because she failed to allege any facts supporting the proposition that defendant was predisposed to discriminate against persons in the affected class; and (4) plaintiff failed to overcome the presumption that defendant employed her on an at-will basis.
II. Contract Claims
Plaintiff argues that the trial court improperly granted defendant's motion for summary disposition regarding her contractual claims for wrongful discharge. Plaintiff says she presented sufficient evidence of an express oral agreement and her legitimate expectation that she would be discharged only for just cause. We disagree.
"A motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), [testing] the factual support of a claim, is subject to de novo review." Oade v Jackson National Life Ins Co of Michigan, 465 Mich 244, 251; 632 NW2d 126 (2001), citing Smith v Globe Life Ins Co, 460 Mich 446, 454; 597 NW2d 28 (1999). We consider the affidavits, pleadings, depositions, admissions, and other evidence submitted by the parties in the light most favorable to the non- moving party. Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 120; 597 NW2d 817 (1999). "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." Id, citing MCR 2.116(C)(10), (G)(4); Quinto v Cross & Peters Co, 451 Mich 358; 547 NW2d 314 (1996).
Employment relationships are presumed to be terminable at the will of either the employer or the employee. Lytle v Malady (On Rehearing), 458 Mich 153, 163; 579 NW2d 906 (1998). However, the presumption of employment at will can be overcome by proof of a contract provision for a definite term of employment or by an agreement which prohibits discharge without good cause. Id. at 164, citing Rood v General Dynamics Corp, 444 Mich 107, 117; 507 NW2d 591 (1993).
Plaintiff asserts that she received oral assurances of a just-cause employment relationship during her pre-employment interview and testified that she was told that defendant did not terminate employees without good reason. However, plaintiff acknowledges that she was informed, at the same time, that employees could be summarily dismissed for a list of infractions, including stealing, substance abuse, and patient neglect.
Although a just-cause employment relationship may arise through oral assurances, the oral assurances must be both clear and unequivocal. Lytle, supra at 171. In addition, the oral representations must demonstrate both negotiation and mutual assent to the just-cause employment relationship, rather than simply expressions of hope for a long-term employment relationship. Id. at 172; Bracco v Michigan Technological University, 231 Mich App 578, 598- 599; 588 NW2d 467 (1998). Moreover, a "'nonexclusive list of common-sense rules of behavior that can lead to disciplinary action or discharge, clearly reserves the right of an employer to discharge an employee at will.'" Dolan v Continental Airlines, 454 Mich 373, 388; 563 NW2d 23 (1997), citing Rood, supra at 142.
Viewing plaintiff's allegations in the light most favorable to her, we conclude that plaintiff inquired about job security rather than negotiating for job security. Lytle, supra at 172. Also, her inte
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Michigan Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|