Reid v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., No. 82-40456.
| Court | United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court (Western District Michigan) |
| Writing for the Court | Charles DeWitt, Jr., Detroit, Mich., for defendant |
| Citation | 588 F. Supp. 558 |
| Docket Number | No. 82-40456. |
| Decision Date | 21 February 1984 |
| Parties | Mary Ann REID, Plaintiff, v. SEARS, ROEBUCK AND COMPANY, a New York Corporation, Defendant. |
588 F. Supp. 558
Mary Ann REID, Plaintiff,
v.
SEARS, ROEBUCK AND COMPANY, a New York Corporation, Defendant.
No. 82-40456.
United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, S.D.
February 21, 1984.
James A. Brescoll, Mount Clemens, Mich., for plaintiff.
Charles DeWitt, Jr., Detroit, Mich., for defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
NEWBLATT, District Judge.
This wrongful termination suit arises out of defendant's severance from employment of plaintiff after almost seventeen years of service. Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that (1) defendant breached the employment contract and (2) defendant was negligent in evaluating plaintiff's performance and in investigating the cause of her dismissal. Defendant's motion for summary judgment is before the Court.
The incidents leading up to plaintiff's dismissal commenced the evening of January 8, 1981. Plaintiff's son had borrowed the 1969 Plymouth belonging to plaintiff's mother. Having parked the car, plaintiff's son returned to find the battery stolen. He called his father, plaintiff's husband, for advice. Plaintiff's husband agreed to buy a battery to replace the one stolen from the Plymouth. The husband then went to defendant's Grosse Pointe store and, using his wife's 10% discount, purchased a new "Die Hard" battery. The sales receipt reflected that Rollie Reid had purchased the battery at an employee discount for a 1978 Dodge.
Plaintiff's mother later attempted to file an insurance claim for the stolen battery, but was instructed she could not do so without a receipt for purchase of the stolen battery and a receipt for the purchase of the replacement battery. Plaintiff offered
A month later, defendant's Grosse Pointe store manager, Mr. Everest, was contacted by agents of plaintiff's mother's insurance company and asked whether it was possible for two invoices to be numbered consecutively, but dated two months apart. Mr. Everest then instituted an investigation which resulted in the firing of plaintiff and Dunaj for willful misconduct after each had admitted his role in the falsification of invoices.
It is indisputed that plaintiff's employment contract was indefinite as to duration. In Michigan, such contracts, without more, are construed as being terminable at will by either party. Lynas v. Maxwell Farms, 279 Mich. 684, 687, 273 N.W. 315 (1937). However, an employer's statements of policy can give rise to the legitimate expectation of an employee hired for an indefinite period that he will be dismissed only for good cause. Toussaint v. Blue Cross, 408 Mich. 579, 292 N.W.2d 880 (1980). Plaintiff relies on four "statements" by defendant which created her expectation that she would only be fired for good cause: (1) the employee handbook, "Getting Acquainted with Sears," (2) her store manager Mr. Harrington's oral promise of job security, (3) defendant's corrective interview policy, and (4) defendant's policy requiring approval by a territorial vice president prior to termination. Defendant, on the other hand, asserts that regardless of whether plaintiff subjectively relied on the above alleged policies, her reliance was not legitimate.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reid v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., No. 84-1189
...Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on the basis of diversity of citizenship. Three judges of the District heard the cases, 588 F.Supp. 558, and each granted summary judgment in favor of In Toussaint the Supreme Court of Michigan recognized the general rule that "in the absence ......
-
Carpenter v. American Excelsior Co., No. 85-CV-40567-FL.
...number of sales calls per day. Therefore, just cause existed. 2 The named case was before this writer. Reid v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 588 F.Supp. 558. (E.D. Mich.1984), aff'd 790 F.2d 453 (6th 3 This language was as follows: In consideration of my employment, I agree to conform to the ru......
-
Rouse v. PEPSI-COLA METRO. BOTTLING CO., INC., No. 83-CV-3243-DT.
...4 Kay at 102. 5 Schwartz v. Michigan Sugar Co., 106 Mich. App. 471, 308 N.W.2d 459, 462 (1981); Reid v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 588 F.Supp. 558, 561 (E.D.Mich.1984). 6 Kewin v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co., 409 Mich. 401, 295 N.W.2d 50, 56 (1980), reh'g denied, 409 Mich. 1116 (19......
-
Taylor v. General Motors Corp., No. 81-40304.
...precludes justifiable reliance on "Working With General Motors." For the reasons stated in Reid v. Sears, Roebuck and Company, 588 F.Supp. 558, 563-564 (E.D.Mich.1984), this Court is unpersuaded by GM's arguments that plaintiff does not have a Toussaint claim. Now the Court must t......
-
Reid v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., No. 84-1189
...Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on the basis of diversity of citizenship. Three judges of the District heard the cases, 588 F.Supp. 558, and each granted summary judgment in favor of In Toussaint the Supreme Court of Michigan recognized the general rule that "in the absence of di......
-
Carpenter v. American Excelsior Co., No. 85-CV-40567-FL.
...number of sales calls per day. Therefore, just cause existed. 2 The named case was before this writer. Reid v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 588 F.Supp. 558. (E.D. Mich.1984), aff'd 790 F.2d 453 (6th 3 This language was as follows: In consideration of my employment, I agree to conform to the rules ......
-
Rouse v. PEPSI-COLA METRO. BOTTLING CO., INC., No. 83-CV-3243-DT.
...4 Kay at 102. 5 Schwartz v. Michigan Sugar Co., 106 Mich. App. 471, 308 N.W.2d 459, 462 (1981); Reid v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 588 F.Supp. 558, 561 (E.D.Mich.1984). 6 Kewin v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co., 409 Mich. 401, 295 N.W.2d 50, 56 (1980), reh'g denied, 409 Mich. 1116 (19......
-
Taylor v. General Motors Corp., No. 81-40304.
...quoted) precludes justifiable reliance on "Working With General Motors." For the reasons stated in Reid v. Sears, Roebuck and Company, 588 F.Supp. 558, 563-564 (E.D.Mich.1984), this Court is unpersuaded by GM's arguments that plaintiff does not have a Toussaint claim. Now the Court must tur......