In Patricia Dzurka v Mid-Michigan Medical Center, No. 343162 (January 2019), the Michigan Court of Appeals held that an application for employment constitutes part of an employee’s contract provided there is a grant of employment.
Plaintiff was an assistant surgical technician from 2007-2015. The parties disagree on the basis for discharge. Plaintiff claims that her employment was terminated in retaliation for reporting about alleged unsafe operating room practices. Defendant claims that she was discharged under the Defendant’s Corrective Action Policy. The issue on appeal, however, was whether plaintiff’s suit was filed in a timely manner.
After plaintiff filed her claim, defendant moved for summary disposition, arguing that her filing was untimely under a contractual provision in her employment application that required all claims arising out of her employment be filled within 180 days. Plaintiff filed her state court complaint after the 180 day deadline had passed.
The plaintiff acknowledged that Michigan law permits parties to agree to a shortened period of limitations, but instead argued there was a lack of mutuality of obligation and consideration. Essentially, plaintiff argued that the Limitations on Claims clause appeared in the application for employment and not in an employment contract and the application is not itself a contract. The Court followed Timko v Oakwood Custom Coating Inc., 244 Mich App 234, 244 (2001), holding that the employment application constituted part of an employee’s contract and that the consideration was employment and wages.
In a footnote, the court acknowledged that the plaintiff’s argument may have been successful in a case where the suit is brought on a claim of discrimination in a failure to hire case. In such a case, there would be no grant of employment to establish the consideration.
A link to the opinion can be found here: https://law.justia.com/cases/michigan/court-of-appeals-unpublished/2019/343162.html
This article was written by Ryan Hansen, Law Clerk
