Berrington v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
2011 WL 3207111
W.D. Mich.2011Background
- Berrington, a Wal-Mart employee in Kalamazoo, Michigan, took approved leaves of absence including one through April 30, 2007.
- He did not return after that leave, believing his leave had ended and did not extend it; Wal-Mart later terminated him under store policy for not returning.
- He was told he could be rehired after ninety days; termination paperwork stated he voluntarily left, not involuntarily terminated.
- Berrington applied for unemployment benefits; Wal-Mart opposed, contending he quit.
- Ninety days later he reapplied for work; Wal-Mart did not offer him a position and others qualified for similar roles were hired.
- Berrington sues in federal court for wrongful failure to rehire under Michigan public policy, asserting retaliation for filing unemployment benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Michigan recognizes a wrongful-refusal-to-rehire claim. | Berrington argues Michigan public policy disfavors retaliation in rehire. | Wal-Mart contends Michigan does not recognize such a claim; at-will employment remains. | Michigan does not recognize the claim; not to be implied by public policy. |
| Whether federal court may create a new state-law cause of action in diversity. | Berrington seeks expansion of Michigan’s public policy exception. | Court should not engraft new state-law theories in diversity. | Court declines to expand Michigan law; defers to state courts for development of common law. |
| Whether the case was properly removable/within federal jurisdiction despite dismissal. | N/A | Diversity jurisdiction exists because Wal-Mart is a Delaware LLC with its principal place of business in Arkansas; amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. | Diversity jurisdiction established; this does not compel recognition of the claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Suchodolski v. Mich. Consol. Gas Co., 412 Mich. 692, 316 N.W.2d 710 (Mich. 1982) (public policy exceptions to at-will employment)
- Sventko v. Kroger Co., 69 Mich.App. 644, 245 N.W.2d 151 (Mich. App. 1976) (anti-retaliation/public policy not extending to rehire in context)
- Peck v. Elyria Foundry Co., 347 F.App'x 139 (6th Cir. 2009) (federal courts should not expand state-law limits in diversity)
- Combs v. Int'l Ins. Co., 354 F.3d 568 (6th Cir. 2004) (caution against creating novel state-law theories in diversity)
- Sanchez v. Philip Morris Inc., 992 F.2d 244 (10th Cir. 1993) (limits on extending public-policy exceptions)
- Dayton v. Peck, Stow & Wilcox Co. (Pexto), 739 F.2d 690 (1st Cir. 1984) (federal courts should not adopt innovative state-law policies in diversity)