Opinion ID: 660213
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: james jeros

Text: 51 The complaint refers to this named individual defendant as a Michigan resident, and EDS' Manager of Staffing in Oakland County [who,] in that capacity directs personnel services.... He is not thereafter named, nor is there further reference in the complaint to the Manager of Staffing or the director of personnel services. The Michigan Handicappers Civil Rights Act protects handicapped persons in public accommodation, housing, and in employment. That part of the Act which relates to employment opportunities makes certain described discriminatory actions by employers unlawful. It is evident that EDS and not James Jeros is the employer in this case. 52 Count II of the complaint is labeled fraud and misrepresentation. Count II, paragraphs 42 through 49, inclusive, refer to requirements upon and representations to plaintiff by EDS alone. Nowhere does the plaintiff mention any specific representation by Jeros (or Brechtelsbauer) made to him. 53 In addressing the sufficiency of pleadings, we must look to state law. In Michigan, an action in fraud must definitely and issuably set forth the facts complained of and relied upon for recovery. Dutkiewicz v. Bartkowiak, 372 Mich. 386, 126 N.W.2d 705, 706 (1964). A mere allegation or claim of fraud is not sufficient to establish a cause of action based thereon. Hager v. Hager, 372 Mich. 288, 125 N.W.2d 865, 867 (1964). 10