Hetes v. Schefman & Miller Law Office
152 Mich. App. 117, 393 N.W.2d 577 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer's oral representation to an employee, such as an assurance of continued employment as long as the employee performs their job well, can create a legally enforceable contract provision requiring termination only for just cause.
Facts:
- Plaintiff was hired as a receptionist for a defendant law firm in September 1983.
- No written employment contract was executed between the parties.
- Plaintiff was given an office manual, but it did not contain any information regarding termination procedures.
- During pre-employment conversations, representatives of the law firm assured Plaintiff that she "had a job as long as I did a good job."
- The law firm discharged Plaintiff from her employment in May 1984.
- The specific circumstances surrounding Plaintiff's discharge are in dispute.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff filed a complaint against her former employer, a law firm, in a state circuit court (trial court) alleging breach of contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- A separate count for libel was dismissed by stipulation of the parties.
- The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, ruling that the plaintiff had a 'satisfaction' contract and could be terminated without just cause.
- Plaintiff (appellant) appealed the circuit court's order to the intermediate appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employer's oral assurance that an employee would have a job "as long as I did a good job" create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the employment was terminable only for just cause, thereby making summary judgment for the employer improper?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. An employer's oral assurance that an employee would have a job "as long as I did a good job" creates a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the employment was terminable only for just cause. Citing the precedent in Toussaint v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan, the court found that a provision requiring discharge only for cause can become part of an employment contract through express oral agreement. The assurances given to the plaintiff in this case were nearly identical to those in Toussaint, which the Supreme Court held could lead a jury to find an express agreement for just-cause employment. Therefore, a jury could reasonably construe the defendants' representations as a promise to discharge only for just cause, making the question one for the trier of fact and rendering summary judgment improper on the breach of contract claim. However, the court affirmed summary judgment on the emotional distress claim, holding that damages for mental distress are not recoverable for breach of an employment contract absent a separately pleaded, independent tort.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the doctrine established in Toussaint, solidifying that oral statements can modify the default at-will employment relationship into a contract requiring just cause for termination. It underscores that employers' seemingly informal assurances of job security during the hiring process can carry significant legal weight, creating jury-triable questions of fact. The case also clearly distinguishes between remedies available for breach of contract versus those for torts, highlighting that emotional distress damages are unavailable for a standard wrongful termination claim unless the plaintiff properly pleads and proves an independent tort like intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Unlock the full brief for Hetes v. Schefman & Miller Law Office