Opinion
No. 313925
05-29-2014
GARY BRUGGER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF HOLLAND, Defendant-Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Ottawa Circuit Court
LC No. 12-002711-CZ
Before: GLEICHER, P.J., and HOEKSTRA and O'CONNELL, JJ. PER CURIAM.
In this wrongful termination action, plaintiff appeals as of right the trial court's order granting defendant summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10). We affirm.
The issues in this appeal turn on the provisions of defendant's employee handbook. The handbook provided that employees within plaintiff's classification "will not be terminated except for 'just cause' as defined [in the handbook]." The handbook then defined "just cause" as follows:
"Just cause" for discharge exists whenever a covered employee engages in any action or conduct, whether or not specifically identified in this Handbook, that warrants discharge. The City, in its sole discretion determines whether the employee's action or conduct warrants discharge. [City of Holland City/HBPW Employee Handbook, p 10.]
Defendant determined that just cause existed for discharging plaintiff because of plaintiff's job performance and his communication skills. Plaintiff sued for wrongful termination. The trial court granted defendant's motion for summary disposition, upon finding that the handbook provisions precluded plaintiff's claim.
We review de novo the trial court's summary disposition ruling. Johnson v Recca, 492 Mich 169, 173; 821 NW2d 520 (2012). MCR 2.116(C)(10) provides that a trial court can grant summary disposition when "there is no genuine issue of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment or partial judgment as a matter of law." "In determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, the court must consider all documentary evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Innovative Adult Foster Care, Inc v Ragin, 285 Mich App 466, 475; 776 NW2d 398 (2009). Our review "is limited to the evidence that had been presented to the circuit court at the time the motion was decided." Id. at 475-476.
Plaintiff argues that the trial court failed to apply our Supreme Court's decision in Toussaint v Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mich, 408 Mich 579; 292 NW2d 880 (1980). In Toussaint, our Supreme Court held:
[W]here an employer has agreed to discharge an employee for cause only, its declaration that the employee was discharged for unsatisfactory work is subject to judicial review. The jury as trier of facts decides whether the employee was, in fact, discharged for unsatisfactory work. A promise to terminate employment for cause only would be illusory if the employer were permitted to be the sole judge and final arbiter of the propriety of the discharge. [Id. at 621.]
After Toussaint, however, this Court recognized that when an employer expressly reserves for itself the sole discretion to determine what constitutes just cause for termination, an employee terminated for "just cause" cannot state a claim for breach of the just cause provision. Thomas v John Deere Corp, 205 Mich App 91, 94; 517 NW2d 265 (1994). The Thomas Court stated, "[e]mployers and employees are free to bind themselves as they wish . . . ." 205 Mich App at 94 (citations omitted).]
In Thomas, as in this case, the plaintiff produced "evidence from which it is possible to conclude that defendant had imposed a contract that did limit its discretion to terminate plaintiff's employment." Id. at 94. Nonetheless, the Thomas Court concluded "the same evidence . . . also establishes that defendant reserved for itself the sole authority to determine whether termination was justified." Id. at 94-95. In light of those findings, the court concluded that "the particular employment contract alleged by plaintiff does not give courts the authority to second-guess defendant's determination." Id. at 95.
The Thomas precedent controls this case. As quoted supra, defendant in this case reserved the "sole discretion" to determine whether there was just cause to discharge an employee. The handbook presents no factual issues concerning defendant's authority to determine grounds for discharge. Because there is no genuine issue of material fact regarding defendant's authority and interpretation of the grounds for discharge, the trial court correctly determined that defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on plaintiff's wrongful discharge claim. Thomas, 205 Mich App at 95.
Plaintiff argues that Thomas is factually distinguishable from this case. We disagree. In Thomas, as in this case, the court found there was evidence supporting the notion that plaintiff was a just-cause employee: "[p]laintiff's supervisor admitted that every employee of defendant could be fired only for good and just cause. . . . Defendant held itself out to all its employees . . . as a company that would terminate only for cause." Id. at 94. And, like defendant in this case, the defendant in Thomas retained the right to determine in its sole discretion what constituted "just cause" for termination. Id. Therefore, rather than being factually distinguishable, this case is factually analogous to Thomas.
Plaintiff next argues that Thomas contradicts Toussaint, and that we must follow Toussaint instead of Thomas. Again, we disagree. Thomas does not contradict Toussaint's holding that a terminated employee may be entitled to judicial review of a just cause termination, Toussaint, 408 Mich at 621. Rather, Thomas holds that an employer may contractually create an employment relationship falling somewhere between at-will and just-cause employment. Thomas, 205 Mich App at 94. Thus, Toussaint's holding remains undisturbed by Thomas.
Plaintiff also asserts that the trial court erred in dismissing his claim of wrongful termination because there is a question of fact regarding whether defendant uniformly applied its employment policies. He argues that because other instances of poor communication involving other employees did not result in their terminations, defendant did not have just cause to terminate plaintiff. Plaintiff's argument would require this Court to review defendant's determination of what constituted just cause for terminating plaintiff. We will not review an employer's determination of just cause for discharge when the employer reserves the authority to make this determination in its sole discretion. Thomas, 205 Mich App at 95.
Lastly, plaintiff argues that his wrongful termination claim should not have been dismissed, because the "true reason" for plaintiff's termination was his report of harassment. Again, any review of whether there was just cause for plaintiff's termination would require us to second-guess defendant's determination, which would be contrary to Thomas, 205 Mich App at 95.
Affirmed.
Joel P. Hoekstra
Peter D. O'Connell