Myers v. Western-Southern Life Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 20 June 1988 |
Docket Number | WESTERN-SOUTHERN,No. 87-1562,87-1562 |
Citation | 849 F.2d 259 |
Parties | 47 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 97, 46 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 38,048, 57 USLW 2026, 3 Indiv.Empl.Rts.Cas. 723 Robert K. MYERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Ohio Corporation, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Beth M. Rivers, Timothy G. Hagan (argued), Donelly, Huizenga, Wahl and Hagan P.C., Detroit, Mich., for plaintiff-appellant.
Sally L. Geib, Miller, Canfield, Paddock, and Stone, Detroit, Mich., Allyn Koutor (argued), for defendant-appellee.
Before KEITH, MARTIN and NELSON, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff, Robert K. Myers, appeals from the grant of summary judgment for defendant, Western-Southern Life Insurance Company ("Western") in this action filed under the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, Mich.Comp.Laws Ann. Sec. 37.2101 et seq. (1977) and the Michigan Handicappers' Civil Rights Act, MCLA Sec. 37.1101 et seq. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM.
The facts of this case are not complicated. Myers began working for Western in 1950. His employment relationship with Western was governed by a series of written employment contracts. Section III(c) of the last contract, dated July 1, 1985, provided that:
Section III. Legal Proceedings
You agree:
* * *
* * *
c. Not to commence any action or suit relating to your employment with Western-Southern more than six months after the date of termination of such employment, and to waive any statute of limitation to the contrary.
* * *
* * *
Similar provisions were in all of his employment contracts signed since 1950.
Myers went on a stress-related disability leave in November, 1982. When he returned to work in December, 1983, Myers was demoted from Associate Manager to the position of Sales Agent. Myers retired from Western on June 10, 1985, effective August 1, 1985. Three weeks after he notified Western of his retirement, on July 1, 1985, Myers signed the employment contract which contained the limitation clause at issue here.
Myers filed this suit in Wayne County Circuit Court on December 10, 1986, over sixteen months after the date of his termination, alleging constructive discharge as the result of his age and handicap (nervous trauma). Western removed the case based on diversity of citizenship, 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1332, 1441, and moved for summary judgment based on the six-month limitations clause. An order granting Western's motion for summary judgment was entered on May 26, 1987.
On appeal, Myers' primary argument is that the six-month limitations provision in his employment contract with Western-Southern is void as against public policy when applied to his civil rights claims.
Initially, we note that, as a general matter, Michigan courts have upheld provisions in private contracts limiting the time within which a suit must be brought, even though the period specified is less than the applicable statute of limitations, as long as the contractual limitation is reasonable. Camelot Excavating Co., Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co., 410 Mich. 118, 126, 301 N.W.2d 275, 277 (1981); The Tom Thomas Organization, Inc. v. Reliance Insurance Co., 396 Mich. 588, 592, 242 N.W.2d 396, 397 (1976). Myers, however, argues that public policy, as voiced by the Michigan Legislature and the Congress in providing administrative mechanisms which either require a waiting period before the right to sue accrues or which, by their very nature, require more than six months to reach a resolution, mandates that the contractual provision in the case sub judice not be enforced.
In Mahoney v. Lincoln Brick Co., 304 Mich. 694, 8 N.W.2d 883 (1943), the Michigan Supreme Court set forth its test for determining whether a contractual provision is against public policy and therefore void under Michigan law:
In 12 Am.Jur. Sec. 167, p. 664, 1 it is stated:
* * *
* * *
In 17 C.J.S. Sec. 211, pp. 563-565, it is stated:
304 Mich. at 705-07, 8 N.W.2d at 887-88 (emphasis in original). Thus, under this "so-called broad rule," Federoff v. Ewing, 386 Mich. 474, 480, 192 N.W.2d 242, 245 (1971), Myers need only show that the purpose of the contract provision is to create a situation which tends to operate to the detriment of the public interest; he need not demonstrate that the public interest has actually been harmed. 386 Mich. at 480-81, 192 N.W.2d at 245-46; Mahoney, 304 Mich. at 705-07, 8 N.W.2d at 887-88. However, we conclude that, under Michigan law, Myers cannot make such a showing.
We are guided in this assessment by the treatment that Michigan courts have given to administrative remedies, both state and federal, as they affect the codified statute of limitations for civil rights actions. Under Michigan law, the pursuit of relief through an administrative proceeding does not toll the statute of limitations. Mair v. Consumers Power Company, 419 Mich. 74, 348 N.W.2d 256 (1984) ( ); Barczak v. Rockwell International Corporation, 68 Mich.App. 759, 244 N.W.2d 24 (1976) ( ). If Michigan does not permit the tolling of the codified statute of limitations upon the filing of an administrative action, we cannot say that, under Michigan law, public policy dictates that a privately negotiated limitations period be voided because of the existence of administrative schemes.
Myers argues that, because his is a civil rights action, a higher level of scrutiny ought to be applied. We note, however, that the heightened scrutiny which is applied to civil rights cases in this context involves the knowing and voluntary nature of the waiver of civil rights claims. E.g., Alexander v. Gardner-Denver, 415 U.S. 36, 94 S.Ct. 1011, 39 L.Ed.2d 147 (1974); Cox v. Allied Chemical Corp., 538 F.2d 1094 (6th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 434...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Taylor v. Western and Southern Life Ins. Co.
...Bhd. of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151, 103 S.Ct. 2281, 76 L.Ed.2d 476 (1983). The district court also looked to Myers v. Western-Southern Life Insurance Co., 849 F.2d 259 (6th Cir.1988), in which the Sixth Circuit considered the validity, under Michigan law, of a six-month limitation of actions c......
-
Morgan v. Fed. Express Corp., Civ. A. H–13–2464.
...Ins. Co., 258 F.3d 1038, 1045 (9th Cir.2001) (California law); Taylor, 966 F.2d at 1206 (Illinois law) ; Myers v. Western–Southern Life Ins. Co., 849 F.2d 259, 262 (6th Cir.1988) (Michigan law); Badgett, 378 F.Supp.2d 613 (North Carolina law) ; Vega v. Federal Exp. Corp., No. 09 CIV 7637, 2......
-
Morrison v. Circuit City Stores, Inc.
...original). In contrast, Defendant argues that contractual parties may shorten statute of limitations. See Myers v. Western-Southern Life Ins. Co., 849 F.2d 259, 262 (6th Cir. 1988) (finding "nothing inherently unreasonable about a six-month limitations period"). Defendant accordingly argues......
-
Minevich v. Spectrum Health-Meier Heart Ctr.
...2010. There is no dispute that parties to a contract can shorten limitations periods in employment agreements. Myers v. Western–Southern Life Ins. Co., 849 F.2d 259 (6th Cir.1988). Such agreements are upheld if the shortened time period does not violate another law or detrimentally impact p......
-
Chapter 11
...Roney & Co. v. Goren, 875 F.2d 1218 (6th Cir. 1989) (stock exchange arbitration clause); Myers v. Western-Southern Life Insurance Co., 849 F.2d 259, 47 F.E.P. Cases 97, 31 I.E.R. Cases 723 (6th Cir. 1988) (age and handicap discrimination). In Myers, the employee’s agreement not to start any......