Langeland v. Bronson Methodist Hosp.

• Decision Date: 30 August 1989
• Docket Number: Docket No. 105964
• Citation: 178 Mich.App. 612,444 N.W.2d 146
• Parties: Warren L. LANGELAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BRONSON METHODIST HOSPITAL, Defendant-Appellee. 178 Mich.App. 612, 444 N.W.2d 146, 121 Lab.Cas. P 56,845
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 146

444 N.W.2d 146

Warren L. LANGELAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BRONSON METHODIST HOSPITAL, Defendant-Appellee.

Docket No. 105964.

178 Mich.App. 612, 444 N.W.2d 146, 121 Lab.Cas. P 56,845

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted Dec. 13, 1988.

Decided April 11, 1989.

Released for Publication Aug. 30, 1989.

[178 MICHAPP 614] Walsh, Langeland, Walsh & Bradshaw by Richard C. Walsh and Lucianne Conklin, Kalamazoo, for plaintiff-appellant.

Miller, Johnson, Snell & Cummiskey by Craig H. Luben, Kalamazoo, for defendant-appellee.

Before MAHER, P.J., and HOLBROOK and NOBLE, ^* JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals as of right from a circuit court order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant on plaintiff's complaint for breach of an express or implied employment contract pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10). We reverse.

Plaintiff was hired to work in defendant's business office in 1967. In 1971 or 1972, he was promoted to the position of business office director. In 1978, the Michigan Hospital Association conducted a review of defendant's business office and found that certain of defendant's accounts receivable were at an excessively high level.

In January, 1979, Bill Johnson, plaintiff's new supervisor, told plaintiff that his performance was not up to hospital standards and must be improved. According to Johnson, plaintiff's performance and the accounts receivable problem continued to worsen thereafter. As a result, in June, 1979, plaintiff was demoted from director of the business office to a new position of "special projects analyst." Robert Graber replaced plaintiff as director of the business office. Graber gave plaintiff two projects on which to work. Plaintiff completed the first project within a reasonable time. However, by January 30, 1980, plaintiff still had not completed the second project. Consequently, Graber gave plaintiff the option of being fired or resigning on that day.

[178 MICHAPP 615] Plaintiff filed a complaint on January 29, 1986, alleging that his employment was terminated in violation of an express or implied agreement set forth in defendant's written personnel policies and employee handbook. Specifically, plaintiff alleged that defendant breached the terms of an employment contract allowing termination only for cause and requiring progressive disciplinary action before termination except in cases of severe misconduct. The trial court granted defendant's motion for summary disposition, finding that plaintiff's employment was terminable at will.

On appeal, plaintiff argues that summary disposition was improper because a jury question existed as to whether plaintiff's employment contract provided for continued employment in the absence of just cause for dismissal. We agree.

While employment contracts for an indefinite term are generally terminable at will, an employee's legitimate expectations grounded in his or her employer's policy statements may create enforceable contract rights to be terminated only for just cause and in accordance with established termination procedures. Toussaint v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan, 408 Mich. 579, 598, 618-619, 292 N.W.2d 880 (1980), reh den. 409 Mich. 1101 (1980). Absent an express retention of the right to terminate employment at will, the existence of a just-cause contract is a question of fact for the jury. Renny v. Port Huron Hospital, 427 Mich. 415, 417, 398 N.W.2d 327 (1986), reh den. 428 Mich. 1206 (1987). Similarly, a jury question exists when an employer's stated termination policies contain expressions of both at-will and just-cause employment. Dalton v. Herbruck Egg Sales Corp., 164 Mich.App. 543, 547, 417 N.W.2d 496 (1987). When ruling on a summary disposition motion under MCR 2.116(C)(10), courts are liberal in finding that [178 MICHAPP 616] a genuine issue exists, drawing all inferences in favor of the nonmovant, and granting the motion only when the court is satisfied that it is impossible for the claim to be supported at trial because of some deficiency that cannot be overcome. Rizzo v. Kretschmer, 389 Mich. 363, 371, 207 N.W.2d 316 (1973).

Resolving all reasonable doubt in plaintiff's favor, we find that reasonable minds might differ as to whether plaintiff could have reasonably...