Proof Enough: Establishing Just Cause for Summary Disposition

In Nyquist v. Tilden Mining Co., the Michigan Court of Appeals found that it did not need to reach the issue of whether the plaintiff was working under a just cause contract because the employer had established "ample documentary evidence" showing cause to terminate the plaintiff.  The court, in its unpublished decision, reversed the trial court's denial of summary disposition.

The plaintiff had moved from a bargaining unit position to a supervisory position.  In response to his concerns about losing the security of a union position, the plaintiff was given a letter stating that he would be "given consideration for any suitable position that may be available" in the event he is terminated for reasons "other than performance."  He subsequently signed a statement acknowledging that he agreed to comply with the company's policies as a condition of employment and understood his employment was at will.

The plaintiff was terminated after an investigation established that he had stolen company property.  In the lawsuit that followed the termination, the company established that it had a policy that employees would be discharged for theft; that plaintiff knew of the policy; that theft included taking company property without permission; and that theft was a grounds for automatic termination.  In his deposition, plaintiff acknowledged that he knew about the theft policy and the punishment and that he knowingly removed property from the company's facility.

The company, not surprisingly, filed a motion for summary disposition which was, surprisingly, denied.  The trial court concluded that a reasonable jury could find that there was a just cause contract and that there were genuine issues of material fact concerning whether plaintiff committed theft.  

The court of appeals reversed and found that the defendant, based on the facts, had cause to terminate the employee and proved the cause beyond dispute in its documentary evidence.  The court stated that the company was not required to prove that the plaintiff's actions met the statutory definition of a criminal theft; it only needed to show plaintiff's actions were cause for dismissal according to the company's policies.  The affidavit filed by the company accomplished this showing.

The court of appeals' decision is a refreshing recognition that where a company does things correctly in terms of establishing policies; communicating them; and obtaining acknowledgments from the employees, it should be able to prevail when challenged.  The decision should be useful in defending cases where there is no real dispute that the plaintiff did what the company said was its reason for termination.

Lexis.com subscribers can access enhanced version of Nyquist v. Tilden Mining Co.

For additional Labor and Employment law insights from John Holmquist , visit the Michigan Employment Law Connection.

For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site.