Court Opinion

ID: 9579052
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:51:05.447323+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:34:14.488483
License: Public Domain

O’Hara, J.
(concurring in result). There seems to be an unbridgeable gap between what the trial judge was deciding in this case (or at least what he considered he was deciding) and the issues raised on this appeal. Witness the following colloquy between the court and plaintiffs counsel.
"Mr. Leib [plaintiff’s counsel]: We haven’t asked for one bit of relief in this lawsuit that he could receive through Workmen’s Compensation.
"The Court: Forget about that. That isn’t the issue. You’re bound on your Workmen’s Compensation recovery whatever the statute gives you. We are not concerned with that. We are not trying any Workmen’s Compensation cases. We are concerned with the issue as to what’s wrong with Oakland County terminating, if you don’t like the word 'fired’, the services of any employee who can’t perform their function.
"Mr. Leib: It’s not only a question of terminating the employment, your Honor. It’s the manner in which it was terminated.

"The Court: You have agreed that they have a right to terminate if he can’t perform the function?

"Mr. Leib: No, I can’t agree with that.

"The Court: It’s inconceivable. It would mean someone could collect Workmen’s Compensation, and, also, *286collect full County pay and do nothing. Now, do you know of any authority in any of the 50 states of the union that would take that position?
"Mr. Leib: Your Honor.
"The Court: Mr. Leib, have you got any authority on that proposition?
"Mr. Leib: No; none, your Honor.
"The Court: How much time do you want to get it?
"Mr. Leib: The question whether or not a man can be terminated because of illness, for that reason alone?
"The Court: No. You have already conceded he can’t perform the function.
"Mr. Leib: I’m not saying that now, I’m saying at the time his employment was terminated he could not work: That’s true.
"The Court: He could not work.
"Mr. Leib: That’s correct; because of illness.
"The Court: All right. Because of illness. And so, it’s your position that they cannot terminate a person in their employment because of illness if they cannot perform their function?” (Emphasis supplied.)
To say the least the court and counsel were not communicating. I don’t know whose fault that was, and it does not affect the issue here as I understand it.
Insofar as the complaint alleges that plaintiff is entitled to damages against the employer for unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, and other benefits clearly beyond the scope of Workmen’s Compensation Act benefits he is entitled to his proverbial day in court. To this extent I am in full accord with Judge Bronson. Hence, I join in voting to vacate the order granting accelerated judgment. As to the employer’s right to terminate plaintiff’s employment because of his inability to perform the services required by his position I agree with the trial judge. I would remand for further proceedings and suggest an additional pretrial conference, *287in order to delineate the issues as between the scope of review of the employer’s right to terminate plaintiff’s employment and plaintiff’s right to present his proofs in support of his claim for money damages.