Longley v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan

• Decision Date: 19 October 1984
• Docket Number: Docket No. 72816
• Citation: 136 Mich.App. 336,356 N.W.2d 20
• Parties: Deborah Washburn LONGLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN, a Michigan non-profit corporation, Defendant-Appellee. 136 Mich.App. 336, 356 N.W.2d 20
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 20

356 N.W.2d 20

Deborah Washburn LONGLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN, a Michigan

non-profit corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

Docket No. 72816.

136 Mich.App. 336, 356 N.W.2d 20

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted May 15, 1984.

Decided July 16, 1984.

Released for Publication Oct. 19, 1984.

[136 MICHAPP 337] Keller & Katkowsky, P.C. by Lawrence S. Katkowsky, Southfield, for plaintiff-appellant.

Karen S. Kienbaum, Detroit, and Kristine J. Galien, Grosse Pointe Park, for defendant-appellee.

[136 MICHAPP 338] Before M.J. KELLY, P.J., and BRONSON and SIMON, ^* JJ.

BRONSON, Judge.

Plaintiff appeals as of right from an order of summary judgment in favor of defendant.

On or about September 23, 1976, plaintiff was hired by defendant as a pricer in Medicare Adjudication Unit II. Shortly after she was hired, plaintiff received a copy of defendant's employee handbook, which contained the following provision:

"Just as any employee may resign at any time and for any reason, the company, because of legal considerations, reserves the right to release an employee at any time for any reason."

In November, 1976, plaintiff was transferred to Medicare Adjudication Unit III. Plaintiff was discharged from her employment on December 30, 1976, as a result of her alleged participation in an unauthorized work slowdown. Plaintiff filed her complaint on December 23, 1982, alleging that her discharge was in violation of an implied contract to discharge only for cause. After taking plaintiff's deposition on March 4, 1983, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted defendant summary judgment pursuant to GCR 1963, 117.2(3).

In Karaskiewicz v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan, 126 Mich.App. 103, 110, 336 N.W.2d 757, lv. den. 418 Mich. 882 (1983), this Court set forth the standard of review of a motion brought under GCR 1963, 117.2(3):

"GCR 1963, 117.2(3) allows a trial court to grant summary judgment where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to [136 MICHAPP 339] judgment as a matter of law. A motion based on this subrule is designed to test whether there is factual support for a claim. When passing upon a motion under the subrule, the court must consider the pleadings, affidavits, depositions, admissions and other documentary evidence available to it."

At her deposition taken on March 4, 1983, plaintiff admitted having read the employee handbook at the time of her hiring and that she recalled reading language in the handbook which stated she could be terminated at any time for any reason. Plaintiff further admitted that she believed that the language contained in the employee handbook was correct and was, in fact, the state of her employment with defendant. The trial court found that, as a matter of law, plaintiff's admission at her deposition precluded her from claiming that she had a legitimate expectation of discharge only for good cause and that, in light of plaintiff's admission, further discovery would be of no avail to plaintiff.

In Toussaint v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan, 408 Mich. 579, 598, 292 N.W.2d 880 (1980), reh. den. 409 Mich. 1101 (1980), the Supreme Court held that:

"1) a provision of an employment contract providing that an employee shall not be discharged except for cause is legally enforceable although the contract is not for a definite term--the term is 'indefinite', and

"2) such a provision may become part of the contract either by express agreement, oral or written, or as a result of an employee's legitimate expectations grounded in an employer's policy statements."

The Toussaint decision does not limit an employer's right to enter into an employment contract terminable at will without assigning cause. 408 [136 MICHAPP 340] Mich. 610, 292 N.W.2d 880. Rather, Toussaint makes clear that an employment contract for an indefinite period is not automatically insulated from judicial construction; our task is to determine whether, in a given case, the employer expressly agreed to terminate only for cause or whether statements of company policy and procedure gave rise to an employee's legitimate expectation of discharge only for cause.

The statements of company policy and procedure which plaintiff argues gave rise to a legitimate expectation of a just cause termination standard derive from three sources: (1) a memorandum issued to employees in Unit III by their supervisor, Eunice Armstrong, (2) the discipline and discharge guidelines in the Personnel and Procedures Manual, and (3) the alleged testimony of one of defendant's managerial employees, in a separate lawsuit, that he terminated employees only for good cause and did not personally consider employment of his subordinates to be "at will". Such policies and procedures, if substantiated by documentary evidence, ordinarily might be sufficient to withstand a motion for summary judgment. Schipani v. Ford Motor Co, 102 Mich.App. 606, 302 N.W.2d 307 (1981). In Schipani, this Court held that even a written employment agreement in which the plaintiff acknowledged that he could be terminated at any time without advance notice did not necessarily bar an action under the Toussaint doctrine where oral representations and employer's manuals assured the employee that dismissal would be for cause only. What distinguishes the instant case from Toussaint, supra, and its...