Deceased v. Creative Techniques, Inc.

• Decision Date: 18 October 2018
• Docket Number: Case Number 17-12705
• Parties: ESTATE OF JOHN H. SIENKIEWICZ DECEASED, by Nancy Sienkiewicz, its Personal Representative, Plaintiff, v. CREATIVE TECHNIQUES, INC., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

ESTATE OF JOHN H. SIENKIEWICZ DECEASED,

by Nancy Sienkiewicz, its Personal Representative, Plaintiff, v. CREATIVE TECHNIQUES, INC., Defendant.

Case Number 17-12705

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

October 18, 2018

Honorable David M. Lawson

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

John Sienkiewicz filed this action alleging that his employer, defendant Creative Techniques, Inc., breached its contract with him when it withheld his annual bonus in 2017. He filed an amended complaint raising additional claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and state law claims under Michigan's Sales Representative Commission Act, the Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act (PWDCRA), promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment. Sienkiewicz passed away while the case was pending, and after his personal representative was substituted as the plaintiff. After the federal claim was added, the defendant removed the case to this Court and moved for summary judgment on all counts, arguing that when Sienkiewicz voluntarily terminated his employment with the defendant at the end of 2016, he rendered himself ineligible for his bonus under the subject contract. The plaintiff has raised an issue of fact that precludes summary judgment on the FMLA interference claim, and its resolution also impacts the merits of the breach of contract claim in Count I. But the defendant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law on all the other state law claims. Therefore, the motion will be granted in part and denied in part.

I.

On May 26, 2002, John H. Sienkiewicz began working as an account manager for the defendant, Creative Techniques, Inc. (CTI), a Michigan corporation that specializes in making custom reusable packaging primarily for the automotive industry. Between 2002 and 2012, Sienkiewicz worked full-time as CTI's exclusive account manager for General Motors. After expressing interest in retirement based on his age, Sienkiewicz transitioned to part-time employment in February 2013. During that time, he retained his same responsibilities and trained CTI employee Rick Micale to take over as the account manager for General Motors. Sienkiewicz remained employed at CTI in this reduced capacity until his retirement on December 31, 2016.

During his tenure at CTI, Sienkiewicz received all salary payments owed to him and was at times eligible for an annual bonus under the defendant's Incentive Sales Compensation Plan (ISCP). Under the ISCP, which has never been subject to any amendments, a salesperson-participant is entitled to a bonus that primarily is calculated as a percentage of net revenue achieved or exceeded by him in a calendar year. Critically, in order to receive payment, a participant must be employed at CTI during the "measurement period" as well as "payment period." The measurement period runs from January 1 through December 31 of the calendar year; the payment period runs from January 1 through March 31 of the following year. Sienkiewicz signed an ISCP agreement and received bonuses under the plan for calendar years 2013, 2014, and 2015. Although eligible and selected for participation, Sienkiewicz did not sign an ISCP agreement for calendar year 2010.

On March 17, 2015, Sienkiewicz was diagnosed with glioblastoma, an aggressive type of brain cancer. He immediately underwent treatment, including a craniotomy, radiation, andchemotherapy. Sienkiewicz testified that he resumed his part-time work a couple days after his procedures, noting that he did not request any medical leave, nor did CTI offer any. On January 19, 2016, Sienkiewicz signed an ISCP agreement for 2016. He continued to work part-time with no disruptions until his retirement in December 2016.

On August 4, 2016, Sienkiewicz met with CTI's chairman Michael Davis to discuss retirement. Sienkiewicz testified that he expressed concern over his cancer and his old age during that meeting. Davis also remembers Sienkiewicz informing him of a second surgery and requesting that he be able to return to work thereafter. They did not discuss his annual bonus under the ISCP. Davis said that he understood Sienkiewicz's circumstances and that he would be missed.

On December 6, 2016, Sienkiewicz had a second conversation regarding his upcoming retirement, this time with CTI president and general manager Joseph Banfield. During his deposition, Sienkiewicz offered the following summary of their conversation:

Q: What was the meeting about?

A: The meeting was about — I had accrued vacation time for 2016. And my boss, whose name was Stan Shore, he retired. And he — we both retired on the same day. And he talked to me, and he says, "Well, you know" —

Q: I'm sorry. When you say "he" are you referring —

A: "He" is Stan Shore. He said, "You know, we ought to go out on the same day." he said — "and take our vacation — you know, our accrued vacation." And I said, "Yeah, okay."

And so I talked to Joe Banfield about that, which would take me into January or February of this year. This year, 2017. Anyway, okay. I talked to Joe. I said, "Hey, this is what — this is what Stan was thinking. What are your — he said he talked to you." And he — Joe says, "Nah, I told him it's not a good idea. Just cut it — cut it at the end of the year, and everything will be clean, and that's what you should do."

And that was — that was my discussion with Joe Banfield about retiring.

Sienkiewicz dep. at 31-32, ECF No. 21-4, PageID.868. Banfield remembers things differently. He testified that he never encouraged Sienkiewicz to make a "clean break" with CTI at the end of 2016, nor did he discourage Sienkiewicz from using his vacation days. Banfield stated that they discussed whether Sienkiewicz would receive vacation pay if he were to retire on December 31, 2016, and that he informed Sienkiewicz that he would "check into it." Sienkiewicz testified that they did not discuss his bonus under the ISCP during this meeting.

CTI's Employee Handbook outlines leave time for CTI employees, noting that salaried employees at CTI of Sienkiewicz's tenure are entitled to three weeks of paid vacation per year, which do not carry over from year to year. Sienkiewicz averred that he believed he was entitled to around 200 days of vacation at the time of his meeting with Banfield. Although his paystub from that pay period indicates that he had 120 days available, Banfield explained in his deposition that the paystub, and others like it, reflect a clerical error from when CTI changed payroll companies. During their conversation, Banfield assured Sienkiewicz that he would follow up with human resources regarding his vacation time. Banfield testified that instead he spoke directly to Michael Davis, who informed him that Sienkiewicz was not eligible for vacation time. At the time of his retirement, Sienkiewicz had no vacation days left over.

At some point in the Spring of 2017, Sienkiewicz realized that he did not receive his bonus under the ISCP for 2016. On March 18, 2017, he met with Davis at their "bagel spot" to find out what happened to his bonus as well as to suggest that his trainee, Rick Micale, receive 60% of his bonus. Sienkiewicz testified that Davis merely told him that he was "working on it" and would be in touch; Davis never followed up. Davis testified that he never made any such assurances and that they primarily discussed Sienkiewicz's health.

On April 6, 2017, Sienkiewicz sent Davis and Banfield the following email, titled "Oh my. What a surprise!":

To: Mike Davis

Joe Banfield

For the last six weeks, I waited for the mail to deliver my last bonus check. When April arrived without any check, I realized there was a problem. Consequently, I thoroughly read the last bonus contract agreement. Imagine my surprise when I discovered the clause, ". . . must be employed for both measurement period and payment period."

So what if:

1. Mike, during my exit interview in December, you would have reminded me that I would become ineligible to receive my 2016 bonus if not employed during the payment period?

2. Joe, during our "mono a mono" meeting, you would have recommended that I stay until the end of the first quarter to be eligible for the 2016 bonus, instead of encouraging me to leave without using remaining vacation days, as I was contemplating?

Although I realize we are responsible for our own decisions, I feel let down by those for whom I have worked so diligently for the last fifteen years.

Your retired but stbill [sic] loyal employee,

John Sienkiewicz

Apr. 6, 2017 Email, ECF No. 21-10, PageID.952. Davis and Banfield never responded to Sienkiewicz's email.

Sienkiewicz testified that he believed his bonus for 2016 would have been at least $142,500. Rick Micale apparently represented to Davis in February 2017 that Micale carried 100% of the workload shared between him and Sienkiewicz for calendar year 2016. Davis testified that Micale received a bonus in March 2017 that represented the full amount of what would have been owed to Sienkiewicz.

On at least one prior occasion, the defendant issued a bonus under the ISCP to a terminated salesperson — Stewart Wilson — who was not employed through the relevant payment period.

Based on these facts, the plaintiff's amended complaint pleads claims on the theories of breach of contract (Counts I and II); violation of Michigan PWDCRA (Count III); violation of Michigan Sales Representative Commission Act (Count IV); violation of the FMLA (Count V), unjust enrichment (Count VI), and promissory estoppel (Count VII).

II.

Summary judgment is appropriate "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). When reviewing the motion record, "[t]he court must view the evidence and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party, and determine 'whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to...