William Berrington v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
696 F.3d 604
6th Cir.2012Background
- Berrington alleges Wal-Mart refused to rehire him because he filed for unemployment benefits.
- The district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6), ruling Michigan would not recognize a wrongful‑refusal‑to‑hire public policy claim.
- Berrington’s employment was at-will; he was terminated for not returning from a leave, with a 90‑day rehiring window cited by Wal‑Mart.
- Berrington sought unemployment benefits; Wal‑Mart opposed, claiming voluntary termination; he eventually received benefits.
- After August 2007 Wal‑Mart hired others at the Kalamazoo store; Berrington reapplied unsuccessfully.
- The Ninth Judicial District, Michigan, removed the case to federal court based on diversity; the district court dismissed; appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Michigan recognizes a public policy wrongful‑failure‑to‑rehire claim. | Berrington asserts Suchodolski category three supports rehire retaliation claims. | Wal‑Mart argues no Michigan public policy recognizes failure to rehire; no authority supports new tort. | No Michigan public policy recognized; dismissal affirmed. |
| Whether the court should certify the state-law question to the Michigan Supreme Court. | Berrington asks for certification to resolve the unsettled issue. | Certification is inappropriate; Michigan courts do not recognize the claim. | Certification denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Suchodolski v. Mich. Consol. Gas Co., 316 N.W.2d 710 (Mich. 1982) (public policy exception to at-will termination; three categories)
- Morrison v. B. Braun Med. Inc., 663 F.3d 251 (6th Cir. 2011) (public policy limitations; at-will framework)
- Combs v. Int’l Ins. Co., 354 F.3d 568 (6th Cir. 2004) (extreme caution about substantive innovation in state law)
- Peck v. Elyria Foundry Co., 347 F. App’x 139 (6th Cir. 2009) (failure to hire not extended to public policy torts in certain contexts)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Strickland, 601 F.3d 622 (6th Cir. 2010) (certification and unsettled state-law questions; federal restraint in state-law innovation)