William Sams v. Common Ground
329600
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jan 31, 2017Background
- Plaintiff applied for employment on Aug 15, 2011 and signed an application agreeing to a one‑year limitations period for any employment‑related suit and to waive any contrary statute of limitations.
- Defendant hired plaintiff; on Aug 5, 2012 his position and compensation were changed via a letter he signed acknowledging the changes; he resigned effective Sept 30, 2012.
- Plaintiff filed suit on Feb 5, 2015 under the Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act alleging constructive discharge — more than one year after termination.
- Defendant moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7), arguing the contractual one‑year limitation barred the claim; trial court granted the motion.
- Plaintiff argued the original application did not apply to the changed position and that the one‑year waiver was unconscionable; the Court of Appeals reviewed de novo and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff is bound by the signed employment‑application one‑year limitations clause | The signature only acknowledged reading/understanding, not assent; later job change meant the original application terms did not apply | The signed application expressly bound plaintiff to a one‑year limit as consideration for employment and remained in force during continued employment | The clause was binding; plaintiff knowingly agreed and is bound by the one‑year limitation |
| Whether the one‑year limitations waiver is unconscionable/unenforceable | The term is substantively and procedurally unconscionable and consideration was illusory | Prior Michigan precedent upholds similar shortened periods; employment and wages constitute adequate consideration; plaintiff had a meaningful choice | Not unconscionable; waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary and therefore enforceable |
| Whether plaintiff’s suit (filed >1 year after termination) is timely | Plaintiff: suit should proceed because application does not apply | Defendant: suit is time‑barred by the contractually shortened period | Suit is time‑barred and dismissal was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Rory v. Continental Ins. Co., 473 Mich. 457 (Mich. 2005) (unambiguous contract terms are enforced absent law/public‑policy or defenses such as unconscionability)
- Clark v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 268 Mich. App. 138 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005) (upheld shortened limitations in employment application as not unconscionable)
- Timko v. Oakwood Custom Coating, Inc., 244 Mich. App. 234 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001) (employment and wages are sufficient consideration for waiver of statute of limitations)
- Hicks v. EPI Printers, Inc., 267 Mich. App. 79 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005) (upheld one‑year limitations period and required waiver be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary)