Court Opinion

ID: 9742100
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:06:46.763323+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:28.539731
License: Public Domain

Levin, J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I concur with the majority’s conclusion that Richard Rood presented sufficient evidence to withstand General Dynamics’ motion for summary disposition under what the majority terms "the legitimate expectations theory of Toussaint [v Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan, 408 Mich 579; 292 NW2d 880 (1980)],” ante, p 137. I write separately because Rood also presented sufficient evidence to withstand summary disposition under the "contract theory of Toussaint” and also because Joseph Schippers presented sufficient evidence to withstand summary disposition under both prongs of Toussaint.
The issue presented is whether, considering the evidence in a light most favorable to Rood and Schippers, there is any question of material fact for presentation to the jury concerning the nature of the employment relationship. It appears on review of the records that there is a material question of fact whether a just-cause employment relationship existed between the parties. I would therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals in Rood, affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals in Schippers, and remand both cases for trial.
*146I
Schippers relies on three categories of evidence to substantiate his claim that a just-cause employment relationship existed between him and spx: the Sealed Power employee handbook, the custom and practice of Hy-Lift regarding employee discharge, and oral assurances by his supervisors at Hy-Lift regarding "job security.”
Spx’s employee "Information Handbook” provides:
We are proud of our people and recognize their value through steady employment, fair wages, good working conditions, unusually broad benefit programs, and recognition as individuals.
Sealed Power has adopted overall policies of employment and standards of conduct which are fair to all employees and in the best interest of the company. These policies and standards spell out your responsibilities to the company and the company’s responsibility and obligations to you.
The handbook also contains the following disclaimer:
The contents of this manual are presented as a matter of information only. While Sealed Power believes wholeheartedly in the plans, policies and procedures described here, they are not conditions of employment. Sealed Power reserves the right to modify, revoke, suspend, terminate, or change any or all such plans, policies, or procedures, in whole or in part, at any time, with or without notice. The language used in this manual is not intended to create, nor is it to be construed a contract between Sealed Power and any one or all of its employees.
The handbook provides further that "The company, by its actions and attitudes, will endeavor to *147maintain a spirit of good will, loyalty and harmony among all persons in the organization.” Finally, the handbook establishes a sixty-day probation period and a list of shop rules and regulations.
Schippers also presented the deposition testimony of Roy Overway, the general manager of the Hy-Lift division, that — at least since 1961 when Overway began working for the company — it was the custom and practice of the Hy-Lift division to discharge employees only for cause.
Schippers testified on deposition to oral assurances regarding job security made to him while he was considering whether to transfer from spx’s Sealed Power division to its Hy-Lift division. As noted by the majority, Schippers was concerned whether Hy-Lift — which had previously contracted its trucking operations — was committed to maintaining its own trucking operation. He made inquiries about "job security” before accepting the transfer. According to his deposition testimony, he was assured by Roy Overway, in response to these inquiries, that "unless something was really wrong, [he] would be there for retirement.” Similarly, Schippers testified that his direct supervisor, Larry Bozik told him that "as long as they had a truck, I would be the driver.”
The majority finds that "a reasonable jüror could not find that the spx’s handbook [probationary period or shop rules and regulations] gave rise to legitimate expectations of just-cause employment.” Ante, p 141. At the risk of appearing unreasonable, I conclude that, reasonable minds can differ whether the provisions of the handbook, the probationary period, the shop rules and regulations, and the custom and practice of Hy-Lift to terminate only for cause, considered individually or together, create a reasonable expectation of *148termination only for cause under the contract theory of Toussaint Summary disposition of this claim is inappropriate.
The majority also disagrees with Schippers’ characterization of the oral assurances made to him regarding job security with Hy-Lift. According to the majority, these statements only meant that Hy-Lift was resolved to maintain its trucking function, and, therefore, no reasonable juror could interpret these statements as promises to terminate Schippers " 'only if something was really wrong,’ i.e., for just cause.” Ante, p 124. Again, I disagree. Whether these statements of assurance regarding Schippers job security created a reasonable expectation of just-cause employment under the legitimate expectation prong of Toussaint is a question of fact on which reasonable minds could differ. Therefore, it is properly for the jury.
ii
The majority finds that General Dynamics’ Guide to Good Conduct, annual employee evaluation policy, merit pay increase policy, and Standard Practice 2-415, taken together, would allow ''a reasonable juror [to] find that the overall employee policies could reasonably instill a legitimate expectation of just-cause employment in gdls management and management support personnel.” Ante, p 143.1 agree.
In addition, however, Dr. Rood asserts that oral representations he received, coupled with gdls’ policies and procedures and his favorable evaluations1 and merit pay increases, gave rise to an implied just-cause employment contract under the *149contract theory of Toussaint. The first such assurance was given to Rood by William Persky, gdls’ director of corporate health and safety, during a discussion regarding job security,2 that his "job is fine, it’s secure.” Similarly, Rood’s immediate supervisor, Mr. Spiller, assured him that his job was secure and that he was "a key player” and "one of the basic components of the organization.”
The majority concludes:
A reasonable juror simply could not find that a reasonable employee in Dr. Rood’s position would have interpreted the statement "[y]our job is fine, it’s secure,” in context, as a promise of just-cause employment. . . .
Mr. Spiller’s statements to Dr. Rood that his "job [was] secure” and that he was "a key player” and "one of the basic components of the organization” are likewise insufficient to permit a reasonable juror to find that a reasonable promisee would interpret these statements as a promise of just-cause employment. [Ante, p 134.]
I conclude, however, that, considered with the policies and procedures of the company, which the majority finds to be sufficient to sustain a claim under the legitimate expectations prong of Tous-saint, the assurances given to Rood are sufficient to create a question of fact whether a just-cause employment relationship existed between Rood and General Dynamics under the contract theory prong of Toussaint.
in
In sum, the evidence presented by Rood and *150Schippers is sufficient to create a question of material fact for the jury whether oral assurances, written company policies, and company procedures and practices gave rise to a contract of just-cause employment under either prong of Toussaint. It cannot properly be said that all reasonable persons would agree that no such contract was created between the parties.
I would reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals in Rood and affirm in Schippers, and remand both cases for trial.

 As noted by the majority, Dr. Rood consistently received good evaluations and his promotional potential was well rated. He received no negative feedback.

 Dr. Rood was the plant physician at Chrysler’s tank plant at the time it was sold to General Dynamics Land Systems division. After the plant was sold, Dr. Rood was concerned about his status with the new company and began to inquire concerning job security.