Stencel v. Augat Wiring Systems

• Decision Date: 13 August 2001
• Docket Number: No. 99-72945.,99-72945.
• Citation: 173 F.Supp.2d 669
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan
• Parties: Cynthia J. STENCEL, Plaintiff, v. AUGAT WIRING SYSTEMS and Thomas & Betts Corporation, Defendants.

173 F.Supp.2d 669

Cynthia J. STENCEL, Plaintiff, v. AUGAT WIRING SYSTEMS and Thomas & Betts Corporation, Defendants.

No. 99-72945.

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division.

August 13, 2001.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Lawrence S. Katkowsky, Lawrence S. Katkowsky Assoc., Bingham Farms, MI, for Plaintiff.

William L. Hooth, Cox, Hodgman, Troy, MI, for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

BORMAN, District Judge.

Before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket Entry # 24). The Court heard oral argument on this motion on August 8, 2001. Upon consideration of the motion, the submissions of the parties, and the applicable law, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and DISMISSES the case.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Cynthia Stencel (Plaintiff) applied to work for Defendant Augat Wiring Systems, Inc. (Defendant Augat Wiring) in September of 1995. At the time of her application, Plaintiff signed an Employment Application, which read in relevant part:

I understand that this employment application is not a contract of employment. In all circumstances, employment with Augat is "at will," which means that either Augat Inc. or I can terminate the employment relationship at any time with or without prior notice, and for any reason not prohibited by statute. I further understand that any oral or written statements to the contrary are hereby expressly disavowed and should not be relied upon by me in any prospective employment considerations.

Defendants' Tab A, pp. 11, 17 and Exh. 1 to Tab A.

Plaintiff began working for Defendant Augat Wiring in October of 1995, and shortly thereafter received a copy of Defendant Augat's Work Rules. Defendants' Tab A, pp. 55-59 and Exh. 5 to Tab A. Plaintiff signed that she had read and understood the Work Rules on October 11, 1995. Id.

Defendant Thomas & Betts (Defendant Thomas & Betts) acquired Defendant Augat Wiring in February of 1997. Plaintiff received a new copy of the Work Rules, which merely replaced Defendant Thomas & Betts as the employer listed on the form, but retained the substance of the rules. Defendants' Tab A, pp. 55-56 and Exh. 6 to Tab A. Plaintiff signed that she had read and understood the Work Rules on February 26, 1997. Id.

Both sets of Work Rules, see Exhs. 5 and 6 to Defendants' Tab A, begin by stating that "the rules listed below are designed to fairly and impartially regulate employees actions in order to obtain and maintain an orderly and proper work place." The Work Rules also explicitly state that "they are not intended to provide an all encompassing list of work rules. Employees are encouraged to contact their supervisors for information about other company policies."

There is a statement in the first paragraph of the Work Rules which provides that "no employee will be discharged until the matter has been carefully reviewed by management. All [sic] termination's require the joint approval of both the Plant/Departmental Manager and Human Resources."

The Work Rules do contain provisions regarding infractions which, if committed, could subject the employee to a verbal warning or to discharge, depending on the seriousness of the infraction. Thirteen items are listed under one category which, if committed, would result in "disciplinary action." Twenty-one items are listed under the "most serious" category and carry a penalty of "suspension and/or termination without warning." At the conclusion of the "most serious" section, a paragraph entitled "Other Regulations" reads as follows:

The above infractions are not intended to provide an all encompassing list of work rules. As such, any act conducted in willful disregard to the Company or employees' interests will be considered an action in which appropriate disciplinary action will be taken.

Defendants' Tab A, Exhs. 5 and 6.

On May 8, 1998, Defendants were informed that Plaintiff made a statement to coworkers about bringing a gun to work and starting with it in the front office. Defendants' Tab C, p. 22; Tab F, pp. 88-90, 92-93, 95-96.¹ Chene Dompier, the Human Resources Administrator, stopped Plant Manager Don Dakoske before he went into the plant that morning to report Plaintiff's statement. According to Dakoske, Dompier was "very upset. Visibly shaken." Defendants' Tab C, p. 22. Dakoske told Dompier that he would investigate the situation to determine whether Plaintiff posed an immediate threat. He also advised Dompier not to confront Plaintiff or to go into the plant. Id. at 23. Dakoske began an investigation into the allegations, but turned the investigation over to Gene Salas, the Company's Human Resources Manager. Defendants' Tab C, pp. 23-28. By May 12, eight employees had been interviewed who were believed to have heard or heard about Plaintiff's statement. Defendants' Tab C, pp. 23-27; Tab D, pp. 30, 36-37 and Exh. 7 to Tab D. Three of the eight employees confirmed that they were present and heard Plaintiff's statement. Defendants' Tab C, pp. 25-27; Tab D, pp. 40-43 and Exh. 7 to Tab D; Tab G, pp. 20, 34-35, 38; Tab H, pp. 9.11, 13, 18-19, 29-30, 36-38.

Judy Kalbfleisch wrote out a statement in which she reported that she heard Plaintiff say, "I should bring in an [sic] oozi in the plant and start in the front office." Defendants' Tab D, p. 30, 49 and Exh. 7 to Tab D. Kalbfleisch also wrote that she felt Plaintiff's statement "[en]danger[ed] the employees in the front office." Id.; Defendants' Tab C, p. 24. Other front office employees, Sandy O'Brien, Nancy Piehl and Kathy Hunt, also stated that they felt threatened by the statement. Defendants' Tab C, pp. 23-24; Tab D, pp. 39-40, 70 and Exh. 7 to Tab D; Tab F, pp. 93-97, 110-11.

Plaintiff also was interviewed on May 12 regarding her alleged statement. She explained that she made the statement in reference to a former postal worker who had been hired recently by her husband's employer. Defendants' Tab A, p. 69; Tab D, pp. 45-46. At the conclusion of the interview, Salas told Plaintiff that "people here are scared of you," asked her to leave the building and told her she was suspended pending an investigation. He further stated that he would be in touch with her. Defendants' Tab A, pp. 18-19, 81, 83-4; see Tab D, p. 48.

Three days later, on May 15, 1998, Don Dakoske, Gene Salas and Cherie Dompier participated in a telephone call with Plaintiff.² During that call, Plaintiff stated that she "had been informed not to talk to the company" and told Dakoske and Salas to contact her attorney. Defendants' Tab A, p. 100.

Salas presumed that Plaintiff would not be returning to work at Defendant Thomas & Betts and told Dick DeGeorge so, the Human Resources Director, as well as Cherie Dompier. Defendants' Tab D, pp. 14, 68; Tab F, p. 113. Plaintiff was considered to have voluntarily resigned, and a note to that end was placed in her personnel file. Defendants' Tab E, ¶ 14.

Subsequently, the Michigan Employment Security Commission (MESC) notified Defendants after the telephone conversation that Plaintiff filed for unemployment benefits on May 13, 1998, prior to her conversation with Dakoske and Salas. The MESC requested information from Defendants about the circumstances surrounding Plaintiff's "separation" from the company and to "list all disciplinary action initiated prior to separation." Defendants' Tab E, ¶ 10; Tab F, pp. 49-54 and Exh. 5 to Tab F. Cherie Dompier, under the direction of Mr. Salas, replied to the MESC that Plaintiff had not been terminated, but that she was suspended pending investigation of a work rule violation, and as a result of her filing for unemployment benefits, was considered to have voluntarily resigned. Defendants' Tab F, pp. 53-54 and Exh. 5 to Tab F. Plaintiff never returned to work for Defendants.

On May 12, 1999, Plaintiff filed this case, originally in Macomb County Circuit Court alleging the following: (1) Count I: wrongful discharge; (2) Count II: violations of ERISA; and (3) Count III: defamation, against her employers Augat Wiring Systems and Thomas & Betts Corp. Defendants were served on May 27, 1999.

Defendant Thomas & Betts Corp. filed a petition for removal on June 10,1999, alleging removal was proper because Count II, violations of ERISA, gave the court federal question jurisdiction.

Subsequently, on June 15, 2000, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal of Count II. The Court granted the dismissal order which provides that Count II is dismissed with prejudice and without costs to either side.

Now before the Court are two claims under Michigan law for wrongful termination and defamation. Defendants filed the present motion for summary judgment, to which Plaintiff responded.

ARGUMENTS

I. Defendants' Arguments

Defendants' first argument is that Plaintiff was employed pursuant to an express at-will employment agreement. As such, Plaintiff's claim of breach of an implied contract must fail. Defendants rely on the application form Plaintiff signed which provides that the employment relationship would be an at-will relationship; this is called an express at-will agreement. Defendants rely on Sixth Circuit and Michigan law which holds that where there is an express at-will employment agreement, there cannot also be an implied contract covering the same employment relationship.

Defendants' second argument as to Count I is that even if the Court disregarded the express at-will agreement, Plaintiff has not shown that an implied contract has been created. When viewed in conjunction with the application form Plaintiff signed, the Work Rules cannot be said to have created a promise on which Plaintiff could rely as having created a just cause employment relationship.

In support of the second argument, Defendants rely on Lytle v. Malady, 458 Mich. 153, 579 N.W.2d 906 (1998), a case in which the Michigan Supreme Court held that to survive summary judgment, an employee must provide sufficient evidence to...