Court Opinion

ID: 9694927
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:01:03.957682+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:07.040293
License: Public Domain

Memorandum Opinion. The plaintiffs were fired by. Philip Morris, Inc., on the ground of work-related misconduct, which the plaintiffs denied. They sued Philip Morris (and two supervisors), and won sizable jury verdicts.
The Court of Appeals granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict for the two supervisors, and remanded the case for a new trial with respect to Philip Morris. 194 Mich App 44; 486 NW2d 48 (1991).
On remand from this Court,1 the Court of Appeals again ordered a new trial. It concluded that a jury question existed with regard to whether there was a just-cause contract of employment. 199 Mich App 194; 501 NW2d 246 (1993). Philip Morris appeals.
We vacate the second opinion of the Court of *636Appeals, and remand this case to the circuit court for a new trial, against Philip Morris only, in accordance with the first opinion of the Court of Appeals. The rule stated in the third paragraph from the end of the second opinion of the Court of Appeals opinion2 is overbroad.3 Rood v General Dynamics Corp, 444 Mich 107; 507 NW2d 591 (1993) . MCR 7.302(F)(1).
Cavanagh, C.J., and Brickley, Boyle, Riley, Griffin, and Mallett, JJ., concurred.

 This Court denied the plaintiffs’ application for leave to appeal; in response to Philip Morris’ application for leave to appeal as cross appellant, this Court vacated in part the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for further consideration. 440 Mich 870 (1992).

 Where, as here, the employer has not expressly and unambiguously reserved the right to terminate its employees at will, a question of fact is created that must be decided by a jury. [199 Mich App 197.]

 In all other respects, the application for leave to appeal is denied.