 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hephner v. M&S Manufacturing Co.12/13/2005
UNPUBLISHED
Before: Cavanagh, P.J., and Cooper and Donofrio, JJ.
In No. 257122, plaintiff appeals as of right an order granting defendant's motion for summary disposition in this worker's compensation retaliation claim. In No. 258168, defendant appeals as of right an order denying in part its motion for offer of judgment sanctions. Because the trial court did not err when it granted defendant's motion for summary disposition, we affirm in part, and because the trial court did not provide a basis for its ruling that the "interest of justice" exception applied and simply denied defendant's motion for attorney fees, we remand the case to the trial court for determination of the applicability of the exception and to articulate the basis for its decision.
Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred when it granted defendant's motion for summary disposition. This Court reviews de novo the grant or denial of summary disposition to determine if the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Williams v Medukas, 266 Mich App 505, 507; 702 NW2d 667 (2005), citing Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 118; 597 NW2d 817 (1999).
A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual sufficiency of the complaint. In evaluating a motion for summary disposition brought under this subsection, a trial court considers affidavits, pleadings, depositions, admissions, and other evidence submitted by the parties, MCR 2.116(G)(5), 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. [Williams, supra at 507, quoting Maiden, supra at 120.]
"When the burden of proof at trial would rest on the nonmoving party, the non-movant may not rest upon mere allegations or denials in the pleadings, but must, by documentary evidence, set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Shepherd Montessori Center Milan v Ann Arbor Twp, 259 Mich App 315, 324; 675 NW2d 271 (2003).
The Worker's Disability Compensation Act (WDCA), MCL 418.101 et seq., requires that employers provide compensation to employees for injuries suffered in the course of an employee's employment, regardless of who is at fault. MCL 418.301(1); Pro-Staffers, Inc v Premier Manufacturing Support Services, Inc, 252 Mich App 318, 323; 651 NW2d 811 (2002). In return for this almost automatic liability, employees are limited in the amount of compensation they may collect, and, except in limited circumstances, may not bring a tort action against their employer. MCL 418.131; Pro-Staffers, Inc, supra at 323. The WDCA prevents retaliation against workers who file claims for worker's compensation benefits. MCL 418.301(11); Chiles v Machine Shop, Inc, 238 Mich App 462, 469; 606 NW2d 398 (1999). To establish retaliation, a plaintiff must show that: "(1) he asserted his right for worker's compensation, (2) defendant laid off or failed to recall plaintiff, (3) defendant's stated reason for its actions was a pretext, and (4) defendant's true reasons for its actions were in retaliation for plaintiff's having filed a worker's compensation claim." Id. at 470. The plaintiff bears the burden of showing that a causal connection existed between the filing of a worker's compensation claim and the adverse employment action. Id.
Plaintiff first argues that he was fired in retaliation for filing a worker's compensation claim because he was terminated after being on medical leave for 12 months. He claims that defendant's policy of terminating all employees after 12 months of continuous leave is a pretext for firing seriously injured worke
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.
|
|