Heurtebise v. Reliable Business Computers, Inc.

• Decision Date: 17 October 1994
• Docket Number: Docket No. 152041
• Citation: 207 Mich.App. 308,523 N.W.2d 904
• Parties: Theresa A. HEURTEBISE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RELIABLE BUSINESS COMPUTERS, INC., Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 904

523 N.W.2d 904

207 Mich.App. 308

Theresa A. HEURTEBISE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RELIABLE BUSINESS COMPUTERS, INC., Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 152041.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted July 14, 1994, at Detroit.

Decided Oct. 17, 1994, at 9:30 a.m.

Released for Publication Dec. 2, 1994.

Goodman, Eden, Millender & Bedrosian by Christopher R. Holliday, Detroit, for plaintiff.

Shapack, McCullough & Kanter, P.C. by Alan M. Kanter and Michael L. Geller, Bloomfield Hills, and Clark, Klein & Beaumont by Jonathan T. Walton, Jr., and Patricia Bordman, Detroit, for defendant.

Before NEFF, P.J., and McDONALD and WARSHAWSKY, ^* JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals by leave granted from an April 16, 1992, order denying its motion to dismiss or compel arbitration in this action filed by plaintiff pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, M.C.L. § 37.2101 et seq.; M.S.A. § 3.548(101) et seq., alleging discriminatory treatment in her discharge from her employment with defendant. We reverse.

Plaintiff was hired by defendant in May 1989, at which time she received a copy of defendant's employee handbook. The handbook stated employment with defendant could be terminated at any time with or without cause. The handbook also provided a mechanism by which an employee whose employment was terminated could seek internal review of the decision. The handbook stated an employee who followed the internal review procedure and was dissatisfied with the result could seek arbitration of the dispute. The handbook stated "any dispute, matter or controversy involving claims of monetary damages and/or employment related matters ... including, but not limited to, any and all claims relating to termination of employment" would be arbitrated pursuant to the rules of the American Arbitration Association. Plaintiff signed a document acknowledging receipt of the handbook and agreeing to conform to the procedures, rules, and regulations set forth therein.

Following her termination from employment, plaintiff filed the instant action in circuit court. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to compel arbitration. Defendant argued pursuant to the procedure outlined in the employee handbook, plaintiff was required to arbitrate the dispute. The trial court denied defendant's motion, apparently finding the provision in the handbook requiring arbitration to be ambiguous and contrary to public policy. We disagree.

The provision requiring arbitration is not ambiguous. The clause plainly states that claims for money damages must be submitted to arbitration. Likewise, there is no valid question that plaintiff's claims for discriminatory termination fall within the scope of the arbitration clause. The claims are indisputably "employment related."

The trial court appears to have denied defendant's motion in part because it found there was no "meeting of the minds" between plaintiff and defendant with regard to the arbitration clause. The record does not support such a finding. Before beginning employment, plaintiff signed an acknowledgment form that stated that she agreed to conform to the various procedures, rules, and regulations of the company as set forth in the handbook . Moreover, even were the record devoid of plaintiff's express acceptance of the handbook's provisions, it is well established under Michigan law that mutual assent to a term of employment is not required. In re Certified Question, 432 Mich. 438, 443 N.W.2d 112 (1989); Carlson v. Hutzel Corp. of Michigan, 183 Mich.App. 508, 455 N.W.2d 335 (1990); Toussaint v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan, 408 Mich. 579, 292 N.W.2d 880 (1980).

Plaintiff's argument that the handbook specifically states that it does not create an enforceable contract is misguided. The provision plaintiff relies on addresses the at-will nature of plaintiff's employment, not the handbook in...