Source: https://www.bosglazier.com/at-will-employment
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 20:23:12+00:00

Document:
National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 USC §158(a)(1)(3)(4).
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 USC §215(a)(3), 216(b). The FLSA prohibits discharge of employees for exercising rights guaranteed by the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Act. In general, the FLSA requires employers to pay time and one half to employees who work more than 40 hours per week. Certain employees are exempted from the provisions of the FLSA based upon their executive, administrative or professional status.
Title VII, Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 USC §2000(e)-23(a).
Age Discrimination Employment Act (ADEA), 29 USC §623, 631, 633(a).
Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 USC §1201 et seq.
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 USC §1140, 1141.
Consumer Credit Protection Act (CCPA), 115 USC §1674(a).
Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 4301 - 4333. The USERRA requires reinstatement of employees who have served in the armed services and prohibits an employer from discriminating against those in the armed services.
The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Protects employees who need to take time off work for a serious health condition or to care for a family member with a serious health condition.
Elliott Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA), MCLA §37.2101.
Michigan Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act (PDCRA), MCLA §37.1101.
The PDCRA prohibits discharge based on a disability which is unrelated to the individual's ability to perform the particular job or position. The statute mirrors in many respects, the Americans With Disabilities Act.
Michigan Whistleblowers' Protection Act (MWPA), MCLA §15.362.
Certain statutes in Michigan also prohibit the discharge of an employee because he or she chooses to exercise rights under that law. e.g. Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Act (MI-OSHA), MCLA §4081001 et seq.
[If] the employers had desired, they could have established a company policy of requiring prospective employees to acknowledge that they served at the will or pleasure of the company and, thus, avoided the misunderstandings that generated this litigation. 408 Mich App 612.
Since the Toussaint decision, Michigan courts have consistently upheld the dismissal of implied employment contract claims on the strength of language which explicitly provides for at-will status. Ironically, the most successful employer in this regard has been a company that drafted an employment application which included the at-will language prior to the court's decision in Toussaint. Sears Roebuck & Company has successfully defended numerous implied contract cases by arguing that it took the precise steps outlined by the Toussaint court to preclude employees from gaining a legitimate expectation of just cause employment. See Reid v Sears Roebuck Co, 790 F2d 453 (6th Cir 1986); Summers v Sears Roebuck & Co, 459 F Supp 1157 (ED Mich 1982); and Eliel v Sears Roebuck & Co, 150 Mich App 137 (1985).
In Lytle v Malady, (On Rehearing), 458 Mich 153 (1998), the court held that the company's employee handbook was insufficient to create a jury question over whether the plaintiff had a legitimate expectation of just cause employment. The particular language involved stated, "no employee will be terminated without proper cause or reason and not until management has made a careful review of all facts." The handbook also contained a disclaimer stating that the text of the book did not constitute a contract between the employer and any group of employees. The court held that the employer's explicit policy statement which forbade discharge except for just cause could not have reasonably created a legitimate expectation of just cause employment. The court accepted the employer's argument that the language providing that the handbook did not create a contract was a sufficient at-will disclaimer. The Lytle case rejected the argument that a jury issue is created when an employer sends "mixed signals" to its work force regarding the nature of the employment relationship. In other words, so long as the employer has an at-will disclaimer in place, it negates any reliance upon other provisions in the handbook which may create a legitimate expectation of just cause employment.
a) Explicit legislative statements prohibiting discharge, discrimination or adverse treatment of employees who act in accordance with the statutory right or duty;b) "Legislative expression of policy" - for example, discharging an employee for refusing to violate the law during employment; or,c) Retaliatory discharge.
The leading case in this area is Trombetta v Detroit, 81 Mich App 49 (1978). Trombetta involved an employee who was terminated for refusing to forge reports on behalf of his employer. Trombetta is somewhat unique in that there was no express legislative provision involved which prohibited retaliatory discharge. In Dudewicz v Norris-Schmid, Inc, 443 Mich 68 (1993), the court held that a claim based on a violation of public policy cannot be raised when an applicable statute prohibits a retaliatory discharge for the plaintiff's conduct. Under those circumstances, the statute provides the plaintiff exclusive remedy.
The statute most involved in retaliatory discharges is the Workers' Disability Compensation Act of 1969 (WDCA), MCLA §418.101 et seq. In Sventko v Kroger Co, 69 Mich App 644 (1976), the court held that cause of action is stated when an employee is discharged in retaliation for having filed a Workers' Compensation claim. In Philip's v Butterball Farms Co, 448 Mich 239 (1995), the Michigan Supreme Court resolved a conflict in the Court of Appeals and held that a claim of retaliatory discharge sounds in tort and not in contract. Consequently, the full tort remedies are available for a retaliatory discharge in violation of public policy. The Whistleblowers' Protection Act (WPA), MCLA §15.361 et seq. is a subset of the public policy exception to the at-will-employment rule. The WPA provides that an employer cannot discharge, threaten, or otherwise discriminate against an employee because the employee reports or is about to report a violation or suspected violation of federal or state statute or regulation to a public body.

References: §158
 §215
 §2000
 §623
 §1201
 §1140
 §1674
 §37
 §37
 §15
 §4081001
 §418
 §15