 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Carson11/1/2005
UNPUBLISHED
Before: Talbot, P.J., and White and Wilder, JJ.
This case arises out of an employment arbitration award that earlier was before this Court. Plaintiff appeals as of right from a circuit court order confirming his damages as limited to $450,000 in back pay plus interest thereon from June 30, 2001. We affirm.
Plaintiff DaimlerChrysler Corporation discharged defendant Hugh P. Carson, its employee, on March 7, 1997 for alleged violation of its code of ethical behavior. Carson challenged his dismissal and the case proceeded to arbitration.
The arbitrator made the following findings and ordered Carson reinstated. He found that DaimlerChrysler agreed, in exchange for Carson's "thorough and aggressive representation of [DaimlerChrysler], to thoroughly and fairly investigate any charges brought against employees in the situation of [Carson] brought by suppliers." Carson met his end of the bargain, as evidenced by an employee award he won. The arbitrator found that DaimlerChrysler breached its agreement to conduct a fair and thorough investigation." According to the arbitrator:
[Carson] remains an at-will employee, with the exception that [DaimlerChrysler] has a duty to thoroughly and fairly investigate any supplier initiated charges brought against him, before may take action regarding any alteration in the employment relationship with .
The arbitrator ordered DaimlerChrysler to reinstate Carson "pending a thorough and fair investigation" and to give him back pay and benefits from the time of discharge until reinstatement. The circuit court later confirmed the award.
DaimlerChrysler appealed the confirmation order to this Court, which dismissed the appeal because the order failed to specify a sum certain for the award and therefore was not a final order. That decision led to the September 1, 2001 award of the arbitrator, which established the dollar figures currently at issue.
Carson was never reinstated and the parties stipulated at a June 28, 2001 hearing before the arbitrator that reinstatement was not feasible. DaimlerChrysler contended that "it was impracticable (if not impossible) to conduct a reinvestigation." It also argued that as an at-will employee Carson was, beyond nominal damages, not entitled to any damages for breach of an employment contract. The arbitrator noted Carson's evidence that he sent out approximately five hundred resumes, attended four job fairs, and had about eighty-one interviews without finding anything other than temporary employment.
In granting an award to Carson, the arbitrator found that reinstatement did not happen and was not feasible, that DaimlerChrysler did not undertake any further investigation after the initial arbitration award, that Carson's prospects of continued employment in the position from which he was dismissed were good, that Carson's work-life expectancy was to the age of sixty-seven, that Carson met his obligation to mitigate damages, earning about $18,000 annually after his discharge, and that this mitigation would be factored into the front pay award. The arbitrator used the following table of damages:
$450,000
| $915,214
| ($144,000) = 8 x 18,000
| $1,221,214
|
With the arbitrator's award in hand, the parties filed cross-motions for summary disposition, with Carson seeking an order to confirm and DaimlerChrysler seeking an order to vacate. The circuit court vacated the award and Carson appealed by right. This Court first addressed the merits of this case in
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.
|
|