 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Clark v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.9/13/2005
FOR PUBLICATION
Before: Neff, P.J., and Smolenski and Talbot, JJ.
In this wrongful termination case, plaintiff appeals as of right the trial court's order granting summary disposition for defendant. We affirm.
Plaintiff asserts that he was approached sometime in 2001, and asked to accept early retirement as part of a salaried workforce reduction. When plaintiff declined to retire, he claims he was told that his position would likely be eliminated, and that retirement was in his best interest. Plaintiff accepted early retirement, and completed his last day of work on August 31, 2001.
Plaintiff filed this action on September 8, 2003, alleging that defendant had discharged him on the basis of age in violation of the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.2101 et seq. Defendant moved for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7), arguing that plaintiff's claim was time-barred by a provision in plaintiff's employment application. The relevant portion stated:
I agree that any claim or lawsuit relating to my service with [defendant] or any of its subsidiaries must be filed no more than six (6) months after the date of the employment action that is the subject of the claim or lawsuit. I waive any statute of limitations to the contrary.
The trial court applied the shortened six-month period of limitation to plaintiff's claim and granted defendant's motion.
We review de novo a trial court's decision on a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7). DiPonio Construction Co, Inc v Rosati Masonry Co, Inc, 246 Mich App 43, 46; 631 NW2d 59 (2001). The proper interpretation of a contract is a matter of law this Court reviews de novo. DaimlerChrysler Corp v G-Tech Pro Staffing, Inc, 260 Mich App 183, 184; 678 NW2d 647 (2003).
Plaintiff contends that the trial court erred by applying the shortened six-month limitations provision of plaintiff's employment contract. We disagree.
Until recently, the general rule was to uphold contract terms limiting the time to bring suit, provided the limitation was reasonable. See Herweyer v Clark Hwy Services, Inc, 455 Mich 14, 20; 564 NW2d 857 (1997), citing Camelot Excavating Co, Inc v St Paul Fire & Marine Ins Co, 410 Mich 118, 127; 301 NW2d 275 (1981). However, in Rory v Continental Ins Co, 473 Mich 457, 470; ___ NW2d ___ (2005), our Supreme Court overruled the reasonableness rule followed by Camelot and its progeny. The Court held, an unambiguous contractual provision providing for a shortened period of limitations is to be enforced as written unless the provision would violate law or public policy. A mere judicial assessment of "reasonableness" is an invalid basis upon which to refuse to enforce contractual provisions. Only recognized traditional contract defenses may be used to avoid the enforcement of the contract provision. [Id.]
The contractually modified period of limitations in question is not ambiguous; therefore, under Rory, we are compelled to enforce it as written unless it is contrary to law or public policy, or otherwise unenforceable under recognized traditional contract defenses.
Because there are no statutes explicitly prohibiting the contractual modification of limitation periods in the employment context, the contract provision is not contrary to law. Id. at 472. Furthermore, the Court in Rory clarified that public policy must be clearly rooted in the law. Id. at 471. Hence, this Court "must look to 'policies that, in fact, have been adopted by the public through our various legal processes, and are reflected in our state and federal constitutions, our statutes, and the common law.'" Id., quoting Terrien v
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Michigan Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|