Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


DORLEEN RYDER, Plaintiff-Appellants, v BORGESS HEALTH ALLIANCE, INC. and MARRIOTT MANAGEMENT SERVICES CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellees.

UNPUBLISHED September 5, 1997

No. 193780 Kalamazoo Circuit Court LC No. A94-2426-CL

Before: Saad, P.J., and Neff and Reilly, JJ. PER CURIAM. In this wrongful discharge from employment case, plaintiff appeals as of right from an order of summary disposition in favor of defendants, pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10). We affirm. I Plaintiff first claims that the trial court erred when it granted summary disposition to defendant Borgess, contrary to plaintiff's claim that Borgess' employment policies reasonably instilled in her a legitimate expectation of just cause employment. However, we need not determine whether the parties had a just cause relationship because, even if they did, defendant had just cause, as a matter of law, to terminate plaintiff. II Plaintiff contends that she submitted sufficient evidence to create a dispute of fact about whether Borgess had just cause to terminate her. We disagree. Borgess produced eight corrective action forms dated from April 1986 to May 1993. Each form reflects numerous instances of tardiness, which are undisputed by plaintiff. Borgess also presented eight specific incidents in which plaintiff violated department policies and procedures in a manner that was potentially detrimental to the health and well-being of patients. Most of those incidents involved errors in menu preparation, resulting in patients on restricted diets receiving improper food items. In

-1

support of its claims, defendant presented the affidavit of plaintiff's supervisor, Chris Granaderos, which included extensive supporting documentation. In addition, defendant relied upon plaintiff's deposition testimony. As the party opposing the motion, plaintiff has the burden of showing by admissible evidence that a genuine issue of disputed fact exists. Skinner v Square D Co, 445 Mich 153, 160; 516 NW2d 475 (1994). Plaintiff failed to meet her burden. Indeed, plaintiff does not deny many of the policy violations set forth by defendant, and what she does dispute, she fails to support with specific evidence. Borgess' five-step corrective action policy was utilized here. Although plaintiff disputes the validity of some of the incidents of discipline, she does not dispute that she moved through each of the five steps. Moreover, defendant was not required to pass through all five steps of the corrective action policy before terminating plaintiff. On this record, reasonable minds could not differ

Download DORLEEN RYDER V BORGESS HEALTH ALLIANCE INC.pdf

Michigan Law