Stoken v. J.E.T. Electronics and Technology, Inc.

• Decision Date: 15 March 1989
• Docket Number: Docket No. 100841
• Citation: 174 Mich.App. 457,436 N.W.2d 389
• Parties: Mary STOKEN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. J.E.T. ELECTRONICS AND TECHNOLOGY, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 389

436 N.W.2d 389

174 Mich.App. 457

Mary STOKEN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. J.E.T. ELECTRONICS AND TECHNOLOGY, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 100841.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted June 14, 1988.

Decided Sept. 22, 1988.

Released for Publication March 15, 1989.

Meana, Spruit & Bedevia, P.C. by Richard M. Spruit, Grand Rapids, for plaintiff-appellee.

Clary, Nantz, Wood, Hoffius, Rankin & Cooper by Douglas W. Van Essen, Grand Rapids, for defendant-appellant.

Before WEAVER, P.J., and DOCTOROFF and SAPALA, ^* JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals as of right from two orders entered by the trial court. First the trial court denied defendant's motion for a directed verdict at the close of all proofs. Then a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff and against defendant, awarding plaintiff damages of $14,152.18, was returned on May 1, 1987, following which defendant made a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, a new trial, or remittitur, which also was denied. We hold that defendant's motion for a directed verdict should have been granted. Therefore, we vacate the jury's verdict, the judgment after verdict, and the trial court's denial of defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, a new trial, or remittitur.

Plaintiff was hired by defendant in February, 1978. She was given the company handbook on her first day of work and was told that it contained the policies and procedures of the company. Plaintiff believed that once an employee completed the probationary period, an employee's termination was determined by the guidelines spelled out in the handbook. Plaintiff felt that as long as she abided by the rules set forth in the handbook, she would have a job.

The handbook contains a section on leaves of absence. Pertinent parts of that section state:

"General--An absence of five (5) or more consecutive workdays will require leave of absence approval, or will result in termination for being on an unauthorized leave.

* * * * * *

"MEDICAL LEAVE--Employees who have completed their probationary period may be granted a medical leave of absence by submitting a doctor's statement acceptable to the Company, stating the dates the employee will be unable to work and the reason for the leave. At the end of six (6) months, an employee will be placed on 'inactive status' if he/she is still unable to return to work.

"Employees on medical leave may be required to obtain a written release from their doctor before returning to work or to be examined by the Company doctor if so requested.

"Seniority will be retained for two (2) calendar years (however seniority will not be accumulated during the second year) during approved leaves of absence, and you will be reinstated to your former classification provided you are still physically able to perform assigned job duties and the leave is less than one (1) calendar year. For leaves of more than one (1) year but less than two (2) years, employees shall be returned to available work as soon as possible. However, there is no guarantee that employees will be reinstated to their former job.

"Notify the Personnel Department when you are ready to return to work, or if an extension of your leave of absence is necessary."

The handbook states that after two years of medical leave, an employee's employment is terminated. The handbook also contains a section called "Rules and Regulations" which delineates the disciplinary action that will be implemented for violations of company rules and regulations. The possible disciplinary actions, depending upon the rule violated, are verbal warning, written warning, three working day disciplinary lay-off, and termination. Following this section is a qualifying statement that violations of the attendance policy are subject to disciplinary action as separately stated in the section on attendance policy and that the "Rules and Regulations" section does not apply to attendance violations.

Sometime during December, 1982, through March, 1983, plaintiff took a medical leave. She submitted a doctor's statement within the five-day required period and received temporary disability benefits. During a period beginning in late June through sometime in August, 1983, plaintiff was hospitalized. Again, a doctor's statement was properly submitted and plaintiff received temporary disability benefits.

On October 14, 1983, plaintiff attempted suicide by shooting herself. She was hospitalized at Blodgett Hospital for five to six weeks. She was then transferred to Kent Oaks Psychiatric Hospital. During this time, plaintiff was quite ill and disoriented. She did not request a leave of absence or follow the prescribed procedures and policies as stated in the manual.

Shortly after her attempted suicide, plaintiff's son, August Swanson, went to defendant to pick up plaintiff's check. He informed the person who gave him the check that plaintiff was in intensive care. There was disputed testimony as to whether Swanson was told by a representative of defendant that plaintiff must submit medical documentation and fill out a leave application or that, absent these procedures, plaintiff's employment could be terminated. In any event, no medical documentation or request for leave was ever submitted to defendant.

On November 9, 1983, defendant sent a certified letter to plaintiff stating that her employment would be terminated if defendant did not receive medical documentation by November 18, 1983. The return receipt was signed on November 21, 1983. Defendant received a telephone call from plaintiff's mother on November 18, 1983. Plaintiff's mother was informed that medical documentation was required.

Defendant has never granted a medical leave absent a doctor's statement. On November 18, 1983, thirty-two days after her first missed day, plaintiff's employment was terminated because she was on unauthorized leave. Plaintiff was given additional time over the required five days because defendant knew that she was hospitalized.

Plaintiff learned of the termination of her employment on December 12, 1983. In January, 1984, plaintiff applied for and received social security disability benefits. The Social Security Administration found that plaintiff was totally disabled from October 14, 1983. Plaintiff submitted into evidence a doctor's notation dated sometime in May, 1985, which stated that an appointment was scheduled for August 4, 1985, and that it was hoped that a determination would be made at that time that plaintiff could return to work. However, no medical documentation was ever submitted to defendant or at trial stating that plaintiff could return to work, and at the time of trial plaintiff was still receiving social security benefits for permanent disability. Plaintiff has not applied to other employers for work and is not registered for employment at the Michigan Employment Security Commission.

At the close of all proofs, defendant moved for a directed verdict. MCR 2.515. The trial court denied the motion. We find that, as a matter of law, this was error.

A defendant is entitled to a directed verdict where a plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case. When a fact question is presented upon which reasonable persons could reach different conclusions, the trial judge may not take the question from the jury. In deciding whether the trial court erred in granting or denying a directed verdict, we review all the evidence presented to determine whether a question of fact existed. In doing so, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party, granting him every reasonable inference and resolving any conflict in the evidence in his favor. Goldman v. Phantom Freight, Inc., 162 Mich.App. 472, 477, 413 N.W.2d 433 (1987), lv. den. 429 Mich. 867 (1987)...