Rood v. General Dynamics Corp.
| Citation | 444 Mich. 107,507 N.W.2d 591 |
| Decision Date | 21 September 1993 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 93416,Nos. 10,93968,11,s. 93416,s. 10 |
| Parties | , 126 Lab.Cas. P 57,564, 9 IER Cases 1155 Richard ROOD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. Joseph SCHIPPERS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SPX CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant, and Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., Defendant-Appellee. Calendar |
| Court | Supreme Court of Michigan |
Sachs, Waldman, O'Hare, Helveston, Hodges & Barnes, P.C., Mary Katherine Norton, Barbara M. Robinson, Detroit, for plaintiff-appellant in No. 93416.
Butzel Long by John P. Hancock, Barbara T. Pichan, Detroit, for defendant-appellee in No. 93416.
Edgar Jerome Dew, for amicus curiae National Conference of Black Lawyers in No. 93416.
Reginald M. Turner, Jr., for amicus curiae Wolverine Bar Ass'n in No. 93416.
Paul J. Denenfeld, for amicus curiae American Civil Liberties Union in No. 93416.
Stark and Gordon, Sheldon J. Stark, Martha I. Seijas, Royal Oak, for amicus curiae National Lawyers Guild in No. 93416.
Charlene M. Snow, for amicus curiae Women Lawyers Ass'n of Michigan in No. 93416.
Clark, Klein & Beaumont, Dwight H. Vincent, J. Walker Henry, Rachelle G. Silberberg, Patricia Bordman, Detroit, for Michigan Mf'rs Ass'n, amicus curiae in No. 93416.
Mark Granzotto, Detroit, Monica Farris Linkner, Berkley, Charles P. Burbach, Southfield, for amicus curiae Michigan Trial Lawyers Ass'n in Nos. 93416, 93968.
Paul M. Kara, Joseph J. Vogan, Varnum, Riddering, Schmidt & Howlett, Grand Rapids, for amici curiae Michigan Chamber of Commerce & The Employers' Ass'n in No. 93968.
In these wrongful discharge actions, we are asked to examine employer oral representations and written policy statements to determine the existence of alleged employment agreements terminable only for cause. In Rood, we find that the employer's written policy statements were sufficiently clear and definite to create a jury question, regarding the existence of a just-cause employment relationship. In Schippers, however, we cannot so find. Consequently, we reverse the judgments of the different panels of the Court of Appeals.
For fourteen years, plaintiff Joseph Schippers was employed as an "over-the-road" truck driver by defendant SPX Corporation. For approximately 12 1/2 of those years, Mr. Schippers was employed at the SPX-Sealed Power Division. In August 1986, Mr. Schippers transferred from Sealed Power to another division within SPX, the Hy-Lift Division, which had only one truck and one driver, Mr. Schippers.
SPX leased its trucks, including the truck driven by Mr. Schippers, from defendant Ryder Truck Rental. As part of the lease agreement between SPX and Ryder, SPX agreed to operate the trucks in a safe and careful manner. 1 On January 28, 1987 On August 6, 1987, approximately one year after his transfer to Hy-Lift, Mr. Schippers was involved in a traffic accident. While Mr. Schippers claims that the accident was caused by a "steering malfunction," 4 an investigation conducted by Ryder indicated that the accident occurred because Mr. Schippers fell asleep at the wheel. In any event, Ryder notified SPX that, pursuant to the lease agreement, it was requesting that Mr. Schippers not be permitted to operate any of its vehicles. Ryder further warned SPX that if it allowed Mr. Schippers to operate any of its vehicles, then SPX would be in breach of contract and liable for all personal injury and property damage resulting from any accident involving Mr. Schippers after the date of the letter.
[444 Mich. 111] Ryder's district controller, Peter Stanley, sent a letter to Hy-Lift's production control manager, Larry Bozik, informing him that Mr. Schippers had been involved in three accidents and that Ryder was placing Mr. Schippers on probation. 2 Hy-Lift's employee relations manager, Patrick E. Goresch challenged the basis for Ryder's decision and requested proof to establish its claim. 3 Ryder [444 Mich. 112] never sent the requested information and nothing further occurred until August 1987
Following receipt of this letter, SPX initiated its own investigation. The investigation revealed that this was not Mr. Schippers' first accident; it was only "one of many which occurred while Schippers was a truck driver for SPX." On the basis of the investigation, an SPX risk-management employee, James Sheridan, determined that of all SPX truck drivers employed, Schippers presented the greatest risk to the enterprise.
The plaintiff, Dr. Richard Rood, began working for Chrysler Corporation at its Hamtramck plant in 1968 as a per diem plant physician. In 1970, he converted to a salaried employee at the urging of his supervisor, Dr. George Olson. Dr. Rood's employment responsibilities included the performance of physicals for newly hired workers and workers returning to work, and workers' compensation evaluations. He also was responsible for providing general medical care for plant employees.
In 1972, Dr. Rood was promoted to senior plant physician at the Hamtramck plant. This position required the supervision of other doctors and nurses. He performed this function until Chrysler closed its Hamtramck plant in 1980 and transferred Dr. Rood to the Detroit tank plant, where he assumed the role of plant physician, working under the direct supervision of the personnel manager, Owsley Spiller. 5
Chrysler sold the Detroit tank plant in March 1982 to the defendant, General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS), which retained the entire plant medical department, including Dr. Rood as plant physician. As a result, Dr. Rood continued to report to Mr. Spiller, and his duties remained essentially the same.
GDLS had three plants in separate states 6 and each plant had its own plant physician who reported to nonmedical personnel. The new vice president of human resources, Donald Norman, testified that he desired to create a more efficient means of handling the various medical facilities at the three plants. As a result, he established the position of division medical director to oversee all the division's medical personnel, and only that person reported to Mr. Norman. When filling this new position, Mr. Norman bypassed Dr. Rood 7 and hired another doctor, Dr. Charles R. Harper, who had an extensive background as a medical director in other corporations. GDLS contends that, after hiring Dr. Harper, an economic concern developed. At the time of his termination, Dr. Rood's annual salary was $59,000 and Dr. Harper's starting salary was $70,000. According to Mr. Norman, it was not economically feasible for GDLS to have both a full-time plant physician and a division medical director. He, therefore, purportedly decided that the division medical director would perform both the division-wide responsibilities as well as the duties of the plant physician at the Detroit plant and Dr. Rood's position was eliminated. Dr. Rood challenges the reasons for his dismissal, however, claiming that the hiring of Dr. Harper was solely to replace him. 8 In any event, in December 1984, the then-director of personnel relations, William Pagen, informed Dr. Rood that GDLS "had Dr. Rood filed this action in Macomb Circuit Court on December 29, 1987, claiming that his discharge violated his employment agreement, negligent evaluation, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. On GDLS's motion, the circuit court dismissed plaintiff's negligent evaluation and breach of good-faith and fair-dealing claims for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. MCR 2.116(C)(8). Because Dr. Rood did not appeal this determination, the case proceeded through discovery on only the breach of implied contract claim. 10 Following discovery, GDLS filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. Dr. Rood appealed in the Court of Appeals, which reversed in a split decision. 11 Unpublished opinion per curiam, decided December 27, 1990 (Docket No. 117470). GDLS filed an application for leave to appeal in this Court, which, in lieu of granting leave, remanded to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of Rowe. 439 Mich. 851, 474 N.W.2d 295 (1991). On remand, the Court of Appeals, in yet another split decision, 12 reversed its original holding. Unpublished opinion per curiam, decided February 19, 1992 (Docket No. 145598). We subsequently granted Dr. Rood's application for leave to appeal, 441 Mich. 880, 491 N.W.2d 822 (1992), and we reverse.
decided to replace" him and that he could either submit a letter of resignation or be fired. 9 Dr. Rood submitted his letter of resignation that became effective on January 4, 1985.
Employment contracts for an indefinite 13 duration are presumptively terminable at the will of either party for any reason or for no reason at all. Lynas v. Maxwell Farms, 279 Mich. 684, 687, 273 N.W. 315 (1937). 14 This presumption is not, however, "a substantive limitation on the enforceability of employment contracts but...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rushton v. Meijer, Inc.
...prompted the adoption of the just-cause policy in the first place, might choose to leave the employer. Rood v. General Dynamics Corp., 444 Mich. 107, 137-141, 507 N.W.2d 591 (1993). This economic regulation of the employment marketplace will undoubtedly cause an employer to exercise caution......
-
Sexton v. Panel Processing, Inc.
...“The first step,” the court instructs, “is to determine, what, if anything, the employer has promised.” Rood v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 444 Mich. 107, 507 N.W.2d 591, 606 (Mich.1993) (emphasis omitted). A “promise” is defined as “a manifestation of intention to act or refrain from acting in a ......
-
Lytle v. Malady
...provision for a definite term of employment or a provision forbidding discharge absent just cause." Rood v. General Dynamics Corp., 444 Mich. 107, 117, 507 N.W.2d 591 (1993), citing Rowe, supra at 636-637, 473 N.W.2d 268. A contract for just-cause employment may be established in three ways......
-
Rasheed v. Chrysler Corp.
...is "grounded solely on contract principles 'relative to the employment setting.' " See, generally, Rood v. General Dynamics Corp., 444 Mich. 107, 118, 507 N.W.2d 591 (1993), and authorities cited therein.Even the duty to mitigate damages derives from contract law. See, e.g., Calamari & Peri......