Court Opinion

ID: 9678412
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:19:05.781102+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:04.336573
License: Public Domain

R. B. Burns, P.J.
(dissenting). Plaintiff alleged that defendant fired him for missing work. Plaintiff further alleged that defendant had no right to so fire him since his absence from work was due to a disability arising from a work-related injury for which he had received workers’ compensation benefits.
The record reveals that plaintiff was injured on the job on December 20, 1977. He received workers’ compensation benefits for a period of five weeks. He returned to work, but a recurrence of the pain caused by the injury forced him to call in sick on February 14, 1978. He was fired the next day. Plaintiff commenced suit, and defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The motion was granted by the trial court.
The common law in Michigan has been that:
"An employer, in the absence of a contract, can discharge an employee at will and without cause. Dunn v Goebel Brewing Co, 357 Mich 693; 99 NW2d 380 (1959).” Carry v Consumers Power Co, 64 Mich App 292, 296; 235 NW2d 765 (1975). (Footnote omitted.)
*779However, this rule has been circumscribed in recent years and exceptions have been recognized where the employee’s discharge contravenes a statute or is contrary to public policy.
In Sventko v The Kroger Co, 69 Mich App 644; 245 NW2d 151 (1976), this Court held that an employer could not fire an employee in retaliation for the employee’s filing of a workers’ compensation claim. On the other hand, in the present case, plaintiffs principal allegation is that he was fired because of his injury-related absence from work. This situation does not qualify as an exception to the general rule.
I would affirm.