Eliel v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.
Decision Date | 18 June 1986 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 76014 |
Citation | 150 Mich.App. 137,387 N.W.2d 842 |
Parties | , 43 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 899, 43 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 37,122, 1 Indiv.Empl.Rts.Cas. (BNA) 1842 Albert W. ELIEL, Sr., and Mrs. Albert W. Eliel, Sr., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SEARS, ROEBUCK AND COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Harry Birney, and Arthur Cone, jointly and severally, Defendants-Appellees. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Levon G. King, P.C. by Lee C. Wenskay, Allen Park, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Dykema, Gossett, Spencer, Goodnow & Trigg by Charles C. DeWitt, Jr., Detroit, for defendants-appellees.
Before R.S. GRIBBS, P.J., and HOLBROOK and N.J. LAMBROS *, JJ.
In this action, plaintiffs sought to recover damages for breach of an employment contract, age and sex discrimination, and loss of consortium. The circuit court granted defendants' motions for summary judgment pursuant to GCR 1963, 117.2(3), holding that there was no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that defendants were entitled to prevail as a matter of law. Plaintiffs appeal as of right.
In Toussaint v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan, 408 Mich. 579, 598; 292 N.W.2d 880 (1980), the Court said:
Here, Albert W. Eliel (hereinafter referred to singularly as plaintiff) acknowledges having signed a written application for employment with defendant Sears, Roebuck and Company. The application contained the following provision:
Plaintiff attempts to avoid the effect of this provision by contending that he signed the job application as a ruse in connection with his employment as an undercover agent for Pinkerton, Inc. Later, according to plaintiff, he was hired by defendant Sears by an oral agreement with a Sears store superintendent named Yates. However plaintiff's deposition testimony demonstrates that, whatever the circumstances under which he filled out the application, plaintiff knew that at the time he was hired by Sears his employment with Sears was governed by the terms of the application:
Plaintiff claims that subsequent statements by representatives of Sears established a contract that plaintiff could not be discharged except for just cause. Plaintiff does not contend that any such statements were made by the president or vice-president of Sears. The express terms of the application show that plaintiff's contract of employment with Sears was terminable at will. See, for example, Summers v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 549 F.Supp. 1157, 1161 (E.D.Mich., 1982).
Michigan courts have held that essential elements of a claim that a plaintiff was discharged due to age discrimination include: (1) that the plaintiff had skills, experience, background or qualifications comparable to other employees who were not discharged, and (2) that age was a determining factor in the discharge. See, for example, Bouwman v. Chrysler Corp., 114 Mich. 670, 680, 319 N.W.2d 621 (1982). Plaintiff relies on his deposition testimony to show the existence of a genuine issue of material fact as to age discrimination. Plaintiff first points to testimony that a younger employee was not discharged even though plain...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hrdlicka v. Gen. Motors
... ... discrimination.” Barnell , 512 N.W.2d at 19 ... (citing Eliel v. Sears, Roebuck & Co ., 387 ... N.W.2d 842 (1985)); Tennial , 840 F.3d at 305-06 ... ...
-
McCormick v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.
...status of plaintiff's employment had been altered. Defendant's position was accepted, as persuasive in Eliel v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 150 Mich.App. 137, 140, 387 N.W.2d 842 (1985), and Reid, supra, 790 F.2d at 460, 461. Both decisions hold that statements made by Sears representatives who w......
-
Kovacs v. Electronic Data Systems Corp.
...Batchelor, supra; Summers v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 549 F.Supp. 1157 (E.D. Mich.1982); Novosel, supra; Eliel v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 150 Mich.App. 137, 387 N.W.2d 842 (1985). In each of these cases, courts have entered summary judgment for the employer. Plaintiff argues that under Michigan ......
-
Chavez v. Manville Products Corp.
...v. Brown Mach. Co., 855 F.2d 1225 (6th Cir.1988); Reid v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 790 F.2d 453 (6th Cir.1986); Eliel v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 150 Mich.App. 137, 387 N.W.2d 842 (1985). Similarly, this Court, in Lukoski v. Sandia Indian Management Co., 106 N.M. 664, 748 P.2d 507 (1988), recogni......