 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Liddy v. General Motors Corp.9/20/2005
UNPUBLISHED
Before: Hoekstra, P.J., and Gage and Wilder, JJ.
Plaintiffs appeal as of right the trial court's order granting summary disposition in favor of defendants. The trial court determined that no genuine issues of material fact existed with respect to plaintiff Keith Liddy's wrongful termination/breach of contract and age discrimination claims, and additionally rejected plaintiffs' contention that outstanding discovery issues precluded summary disposition. We affirm.
Plaintiff was a long-time General Motors employee, having originally been hired in 1968 as an hourly worker. In 1984, plaintiff was promoted to a salaried employee position and, in 1989, became a seventh-level general supervisor. Plaintiff was terminated in August 2001 for violating General Motors' e-mail policy, which had been disseminated to employees in January 2001, and which indicated that violations could result in discipline up to and including discharge. Plaintiff's termination stemmed from an investigation into inappropriate e-mail usage that began in June 2001 when an employee of General Motors' World Wide Facilities Group sent an inappropriate e-mail to an employee in another group. During the investigation, several people were determined to have sent e-mails that violated the company's e-mail policy. Plaintiff admitted sending four sexually-oriented e-mails to a number of individuals through General Motors' e-mail system, contrary to the company's policy. At the time of plaintiff's termination, another employee, Linda Slupe, was also terminated. Like plaintiff, Slupe, who was older than plaintiff, sent four sexually-oriented e-mails to numerous recipients. Two other employees, both of whom were also older than plaintiff, were not terminated for violating the policy. However, these individuals were determined to have sent only one inappropriate e-mail to a single recipient. Following the investigation, a contract employee, whose age was not disclosed on the record, was also informed that he could no longer work in General Motors' facilities because of his violations of the company's e-mail policy.
In July 2003, plaintiff and his wife filed the instant suit alleging wrongful termination/breach of contract, age discrimination, and loss of consortium. The trial court granted summary disposition of each of these claims in favor of defendants pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10).
A decision on a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) is reviewed de novo. Ormsby v Capital Welding, Inc,471 Mich 45, 52; 684 NW2d 320 (2004). A motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual support for a claim. Spiek v Dep't of Transportation, 456 Mich 331, 337; 572 NW2d 201 (1998). When reviewing a trial court's decision to grant a motion for summary disposition, we consider the pleadings, affidavits, depositions, admissions, and other documentary evidence submitted in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Ritchie-Gamester v Berkley, 461 Mich 73, 76; 597 NW2d 517 (1999). The court should grant the motion only if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Quinto v Cross & Peters Co, 451 Mich 358, 362; 547 NW2d 314 (1996).
Plaintiff first argues that summary disposition of his claim for wrongful termination/breach of contract was improper. Specifically, plaintiff argues that he was never informed that he was an at-will employee, and that statements by his superiors and his thirty-three-year employment history led him to believe that he could be fired only for just cause.
"Generally, and under Michigan law by presumption, employment relationships are terminable
Page 1 2 3 4 Michigan Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|