Jasmin Adilovic v. Monroe LLC

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS JASMIN ADILOVIC, UNPUBLISHED July 21, 2022 Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 357342 Kent Circuit Court MONROE, LLC, LC No. 20-003233-CZ Defendant-Appellee. Before: SAWYER, P.J., and LETICA and PATEL, JJ. PER CURIAM. In this employment action, plaintiff appeals as of right the trial court order granting defendant’s motion for summary disposition. We affirm. I. BASIC FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On May 4, 2020, plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that he was wrongfully terminated from his employment in retaliation for requesting benefits under the Michigan Worker’s Disability Compensation Act (WDCA), MCL 418.101 et seq. Specifically, plaintiff alleged that he was hired by defendant as an inventory auditor on March 15, 2017. On April 27, 2017, plaintiff claimed that he was working when he placed totes on the ground and straightened up only to experience pain in his back that radiated down to his left leg and into his toes. Plaintiff asserted that he made his claim for worker’s compensation benefits on April 27, 2017, “and [in] the days following.” Nonetheless, defendant “terminated or otherwise ceased Plaintiff’s employment” on May 8, 2017. It was alleged that the termination was in retaliation for making the disability benefits claim. Plaintiff further alleged that he suffered damages “as a result of Defendant’s discrimination against him.”1 1 Plaintiff did not label his claim (i.e., Count I–wrongful termination), but made general statements of “retaliation” and “discrimination.” The gist of plaintiff’s complaint is that he was wrongfully -1- Defendant filed a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) and (10). According to the dispositive brief, defendant’s plastic manufacturing business began operations in Kentwood, Michigan in 1971. On March 15, 2017, it hired plaintiff as an inventory auditor to work the first shift in the molding department. When hired, plaintiff submitted an application and signed a supplement acknowledging the terms and conditions of his employment. This supplement expressly limited any claim or lawsuit to be filed no more than six months after the date of the challenged employment action and further provided that there was a free and knowing waiver of any statute of limitations to the contrary. According to defendant, the dates pertaining to plaintiff’s employment indicated that he signed the supplemental agreement on March 15, 2017, claimed to suffer injury on April 27, 2017, and was terminated on May 8, 2017. Nonetheless, plaintiff did not file his complaint until May 4, 2020, two years and 361 days after his termination. In his requests to admit, plaintiff acknowledged that he signed the supplement and that the document reflects his signature. Although the period governing the underlying cause of action was three years, defendant alleged that plaintiff contractually agreed to a lesser period of limitations of six months. It was also asserted that a shortened statute of limitations will be enforced unless it violates law or public policy. Furthermore, an individual who signed an …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals