734-359-7018
Now Accepting New Clients!
Blog

CONTRACTS 5: Trial court concluded shortened period of limitations on claims was enforceable.

Plaintiff initially filed suit in federal district court, raising a federal claim under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).  The federal court dismissed plaintiff’s FMLA claim on its merits and declined to exercise pendant jurisdiction over the state law claim. Plaintiff then filed the instant action on her state law claim in Circuit Court. Defendant moved for summary disposition, arguing that her filing was untimely under a contractual provision that required all claims arising out of her employment be filed within 180 days.

The application for employment filed by plaintiff in 2007 included the following provision:

Limitations on Claims. I agree that any lawsuit against the Company and/or its agents arising out of my employment or termination of employment, including but not limited to claims arising under State or Federal civil rights statutes, must be brought within the following time limits or be forever barred: (a) for lawsuits requiring a Notice of Right to Sue from the EEOC, within 90 days after the EEOC issues that Notice, or (b) for all other lawsuits, within (i) 180 days of the event(s) giving rise to the claim or (ii) the time limit specified by statutes, whichever is shorter. I waive any statute of limitations that exceeds this time limit.

Plaintiff filed her federal lawsuit on May 2016, 185 days after her discharge. She did not file her complaint in circuit court until December 2017, 756 days after her discharge (and 36 days after the dismissal of the federal lawsuit).

The trial court concluded that the agreement for a shortened period of limitations was enforceable and determined that the suit was untimely.

Although plaintiff acknowledges that Michigan law permits parties to agree to a shortened period of limitations, plaintiff argues that there was not an enforceable contract in this case because of a lack of mutuality of obligation and consideration. The essence of plaintiff’s argument is that the Limitations on Claims clause appeared in the application for employment and not in an employment contract and the application is not itself a contract. This argument was rejected by the court.

The Court previously has recognized that the terms of an employment application constituted part of an employee’s and employer’s contract of employment.

If you are a business owner facing litigation, obtaining the right legal representation is essential.

At Aldrich Legal Services, you will work with an attorney who has the extensive litigation experience necessary to help you reach an effective resolution that protects your interests.

Contact Aldrich Legal Services

FAMILY LAW 83: A trial court can terminate a parent’s rights and permit a stepparent to adopt a child.

A trial court has discretion to terminate a parent’s rights and permit a stepparent to adopt a child when the conditions of MCL 710.51(6) are met. MCL 710.51(6)(b) requires the petitioner to establish that the other parent had the ability to visit, contact, or communicate with the children, and substantially failed or neglected to do so for a period of two years.

PROBATE 53: The trust agreement included an Incontestability Provision.

A settlor’s intent is to be carried out as nearly as possible. Generally, in terrorem clauses are valid and enforceable. However, a provision in a trust that purports to penalize an interested person for contesting the trust or instituting another proceeding relating to the trust shall not be given effect if probable cause exists for instituting a proceeding contesting the trust or another proceeding relating to the trust.

FAMILY LAW 82: Court stated it would terminate the personal protection order (PPO) after the parties present documentation of the initiation of the divorce proceedings.

However, the trial court concluded that these matters should, in fact, be in the province and the jurisdiction of the Family Division and in that respect, having issued a personal protection order, the Court stated it would terminate the personal protection order after the parties present documentation of the initiation of the divorce proceedings.

What to Do When Homeowners Insurance Denies Your Claim

Since 1955, homeowners insurance has helped owners protect their property and belongings against damages and theft. According to the Insurance Information Institute, over 93% of homeowners in the US have homeowners insurance coverage, paying around...

What to Look for in a Criminal Defense Attorney

Originally posted on 10/20/2017 If you are charged with a crime, you could face severe penalties that could include financial fines, public service, or even jail time. For those in the Michigan area, hiring an attorney experienced in...

PROBATE 51: Trust filed a petition to determine title to credit union account.

The probate court explained that the owners of the account are S and J. When S passes, J becomes the owner of the account. J is the one who had the authority to make the designation. Nowhere in any documents is there a designation by J that SJ be the owner -- or the beneficiary of the account. The designation made by his father was no longer binding because he was no longer the owner at the time J passed away.

Invoking Your Right to Remain Silent

Originally posted on 07/19/2017 While the “right to remain silent” represents one of your most inalienable rights, many people have a few misconceptions about how it works. Many people receive their understanding of this...

Arrests made by tracking cell phones may be illegal

Originally posted on 02/10/2017 Law enforcement agencies are always looking for an edge in fighting crime. As cell phones have become an indispensable part of life for many people, authorities have taken to using these devices to track...

Could I lose my job over a drunk driving arrest?

Originally posted on 01/20/2017 When potential clients ask us questions about criminal defense representation (particularly for drunk driving offenses) one of the most common is whether they will lose their job.  Naturally, this...

FAMILY LAW 77: Court awarded plaintiff sole legal custody; defendant was unwilling to work with plaintiff.

For joint custody to work, parents must be able to agree with each other on basic issues in child rearing including health care, religion, education, day to day decision making and discipline and they must be willing to cooperate with each other in joint decision making. If two equally capable parents are unable to cooperate and to agree generally concerning important decisions affecting the welfare of their children, the court has no alternative but to determine which parent shall have sole custody of the children.

Don't let a bad decision, unfair contract, or a messy divorce get in the way of a promising future!
Contact the experienced team at Aldrich Legal Services today to schedule your free initial
consultation
and secure reliable and trustworthy representation today!
Get the Help You Need From a Team You Can Truly Count On: (734) 404-3000
734-237-6482
734-366-4405