Legal Question in Employment Law in Michigan

I relocated only for them and then had my position eliminated

A Detroit company hired me in May to assume many duties from the Payroll Mgr and one criteria was that I needed to be willing to change worksites to one in Flint as soon as the computer links were established there. I relocated to Flint 2 months ago - at my own expense- and patiently did the daily dreadful commute to Detroit and back since awaiting working in Flint. Meanwhile the Payroll Mgr had spent months away at training, it ended and she is back in the office. I reported for work Monday morning and was told due to economic conditions my position is one that has been eliminated. I only relocated to Flint because of this job and its requirement that I work in Flint soon. Flint is dead employment-wise yet I am stuck in one year apartment lease and now have no job. I am feeling I was used to temporarily assume the responsibilities so that the Payroll Manager would be able to attend that training and that this was the plan all along. I don't want to sign away my rights to sue on the severance agreement they have offered until I know for certain I have no grounds for a successful suit.


Asked on 11/26/02, 6:39 am

1 Answer from Attorneys

William Morrison Action Defense Center

Re: I relocated only for them and then had my position eliminated

Unless they promised you a specific term of employment in writing (or promised to make such an agreement) you have no case. See below:

03/08/93 MANUEL E. MARRERO v. MCDONNELL DOUGLAS

[1] COURT OF APPEALS OF MICHIGAN

[2] Docket No. 137972

[3] 1993.MI.583 , 505 N.W.2d 275, 200 Mich. App. 438

[4] March 8, 1993

[5] MANUEL E. MARRERO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

v.

MCDONNELL DOUGLAS CAPITAL CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE, AND ALAN FORRESTER, DEFENDANT.

[6] Harvey, Kruse, Westen & Milan, P.C. (by Lisa T. Milton and Frances H. Porretta), for Manual E. Marrero.

[7] Dickinson, Wright, Moon, Van Dusen & Freeman (by Henry W. Saad and Terry W. Milne), for McDonnell Douglas Capital Corporation.

[8] Brennan, P.j., and Cavanagh and Corrigan, JJ.

[9] The opinion of the court was delivered by: Per Curiam

[10] In this breach of contract action, plaintiff appeals the trial court's grant of summary Disposition to defendant McDonnell Douglas Capital Corporation (mdcc) pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7) (statute of frauds) and 2.116(C)(10). We affirm.

[11] Plaintiff was employed as a salesman at Burroughs Corporation in Mexico in 1986 when he learned of an opening at First National Capital (fnc). In 1987, he met with an agent of fnc, Thomas Husband, and discussed the possibilities of employment and fnc's opening of a branch office in Puerto Rico. Plaintiff resigned from Burroughs, moved to Michigan, and began working for fnc in April 1987. Plaintiff's family, which had been living in Mexico, relocated to Puerto Rico, where plaintiff's mother-in-law lived. (This move was made at Burroughs' expense by prearrangement with plaintiff.)

[12] In September 1987, believing that the compensation was not what he had been promised, plaintiff met with Husband, who outlined a three-year compensation plan and suggested that plaintiff move his family to Michigan. No written record of this meeting or the compensation arrangements was ever made. Plaintiff's family joined him in Michigan in December 1987.

[13] Mdcc took over fnc, restructured the corporation, and eliminated plaintiff's position in February 1989. Plaintiff was not offered a position with mdcc. He sued mdcc and its president in June 1990, alleging breach of contract, promissory and equitable estoppel, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and misrepresentation. The trial court granted mdcc's motion for summary Disposition of all counts and sua sponte dismissed the claims against mdcc's president as well. ....

Read more
Answered on 11/26/02, 10:00 am


Related Questions & Answers

More Labor and Employment Law questions and answers in Michigan