The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that Michigan law does not recognize a public policy cause of action for an employer's wrongful refusal to rehire because an individual claimed unemployment benefits. The opinion was rendered in Berrington v Wal-Mart Stores Inc, ___ F3d ___ (6th Cir 2012) on August 30, 2012.
Plaintiff reportedly failed to return from a leave of absence that had been approved through April 30, 2007. He was thereafter advised that based upon store policy, he would be terminated for not returning to work at the end of his leave, but that he could be rehired after ninety days.
Plaintiff thereafter applied for unemployment benefits through the State of Michigan which he ultimately received, although his application was opposed by the defendant. During the course of the dispute, Plaintiff reapplied for employment with Defendant, but was not offered a position. He then reapplied a second time, again without success. The opinion notes that following August 2007 (i.e., roughly ninety days after the termination date), the store from which the plaintiff had been terminated hired a number of employees to positions for which the plaintiff was qualified.
Plaintiff thereafter filed a circuit court action against the defendant claiming that it violated Michigan public policy by refusing to rehire him because he had filed for unemployment benefits. Defendant successfully removed the case to federal court based upon diversity jurisdiction, and moved to dismiss the complaint. Noting that the plaintiff's legal theory "may ultimately be validated by a Michigan state court," the district court nevertheless ruled in defendant's favor, concluding that since, "[n]either the Michigan Supreme Court nor the Michigan Court of Appeals have indicated any willingness to expand the wrongful termination public policy exception to the employment-at-will presumption to the hiring or rehiring context . . . this Court has no basis to find that Michigan state courts would recognize Berrington's cause of action." Plaintiff appealed.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal. It observed that "[t]he common denominator in all the recognized public policy exceptions to at-will employment is the existence of an employment relationship. An employee's right to be hired or rehired by an employer, on the other hand, has never been recognized as actionable, under common law on public policy grounds." [Emphasis added.] Noting that federal courts sitting in diversity cases are poorly situated to endorse fundamental policy innovations, the Court concluded by stating that, "[w]ithout any indications from binding or persuasive authority that Michigan courts are prepared to recognize a private claim for wrongful failure to rehire, however, even if we were inclined to accept Berrington's rationale, our precedent requires us to refrain from doing so on behalf of the Michigan Supreme Court."
Disclaimer
Plaintiff reportedly failed to return from a leave of absence that had been approved through April 30, 2007. He was thereafter advised that based upon store policy, he would be terminated for not returning to work at the end of his leave, but that he could be rehired after ninety days.
Plaintiff thereafter applied for unemployment benefits through the State of Michigan which he ultimately received, although his application was opposed by the defendant. During the course of the dispute, Plaintiff reapplied for employment with Defendant, but was not offered a position. He then reapplied a second time, again without success. The opinion notes that following August 2007 (i.e., roughly ninety days after the termination date), the store from which the plaintiff had been terminated hired a number of employees to positions for which the plaintiff was qualified.
Plaintiff thereafter filed a circuit court action against the defendant claiming that it violated Michigan public policy by refusing to rehire him because he had filed for unemployment benefits. Defendant successfully removed the case to federal court based upon diversity jurisdiction, and moved to dismiss the complaint. Noting that the plaintiff's legal theory "may ultimately be validated by a Michigan state court," the district court nevertheless ruled in defendant's favor, concluding that since, "[n]either the Michigan Supreme Court nor the Michigan Court of Appeals have indicated any willingness to expand the wrongful termination public policy exception to the employment-at-will presumption to the hiring or rehiring context . . . this Court has no basis to find that Michigan state courts would recognize Berrington's cause of action." Plaintiff appealed.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal. It observed that "[t]he common denominator in all the recognized public policy exceptions to at-will employment is the existence of an employment relationship. An employee's right to be hired or rehired by an employer, on the other hand, has never been recognized as actionable, under common law on public policy grounds." [Emphasis added.] Noting that federal courts sitting in diversity cases are poorly situated to endorse fundamental policy innovations, the Court concluded by stating that, "[w]ithout any indications from binding or persuasive authority that Michigan courts are prepared to recognize a private claim for wrongful failure to rehire, however, even if we were inclined to accept Berrington's rationale, our precedent requires us to refrain from doing so on behalf of the Michigan Supreme Court."
Disclaimer
RSS Feed
