Opinion ID: 518333
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: toussaint employment contract--burden of proof

Text: 6 Relying upon Rasch v. City of East Jordan, 141 Mich.App. 336, 367 N.W.2d 856 (1985), Duke contends that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that, with respect to his Toussaint contract claim, [p]laintiff has the burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence ... that defendants had no just cause for discharging him. Duke further contends that he provided the court with proper instructions, which the court failed to give. 7 Nevertheless, Duke was not prejudiced by the district court's ruling. In pleading intentional infliction of emotional distress, he relied upon the same evidence that the jury rejected in determining that he had failed to establish claims under either 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981 or the Elliott-Larsen Act. Since the jury determined that Duke had failed to prove that he was the victim of racial slurs and discrimination, there is no basis for concluding that the jury could have found the additional element of intent to inflict emotional distress, even had the trial court given the proper instruction.