Breach of employment contract; MCL 600.5827; Twichel v. MIC Gen. Ins. Corp.; H J Tucker & Assoc., Inc. v. Allied Chucker & Eng’g Co.; Adams v. Detroit; Harris v. Allen Park; Statutes of limitation; Huhtala v. Travelers Ins. Co.; The “continuing wrong doctrine”; Blazer Foods, Inc. v. Restaurant Props., Inc.; Unjust enrichment; Belle Isle Grill Corp. v. Detroit; Fraudulent misrepresentation & promissory estoppel; Moll v. Abbott Labs.; Martin v. East Lansing Sch. Dist.; Zaremba Equip., Inc. v. Harco Nat’l Ins. Co.; General Aviation, Inc. v. Cessna Aircraft Co. (6th Cir.); Walker v. KFC Corp. (9th Cir.); Collateral estoppel; Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (CRA) (MCL 37.2101 et seq.); Monat v. State Farm Ins. Co.; MCL 37.2202; Venable v. General Motors Corp.; Retaliation; Garg v. Macomb Cnty. Cmty. Mental Health Servs.; Causation; Barrett v. Kirtland Cmty. Coll.; Aho v. Department of Corrs.; Integration clause; Schware v. Derthick; UAW-GM Human Res. Ctr. v. KSL Recreation Corp.; Barclae v. Zarb; Whether plaintiff was coerced into signing an agreement without full disclosure of its terms; Christy v. Kelly; Rowady v. Kmart Corp.; Christensen v. Christensen; Fraud in the inducement; Samuel D Begola Servs., Inc. v. Wild Bros.; Blackburne & Brown Mtg. Co. v. Ziomek; Good faith & fair dealing; Ferrell v. Vic Tanny Int’l, Inc.; Barber v. SMH, Inc.; Amended complaint; MCR 2.118

The trial court correctly granted partial summary disposition as to the breach of employment contract claim. However, summary disposition should have been granted on the unjust enrichment claims based on the existence of an express contract concerning the same subject matter. Plaintiff was precluded from pursuing simultaneous claims of promissory estoppel. Also, he was collaterally estopped from pursuing his breach of contract claims based on the assertion of employment discrimination under the CRA due to the federal district court’s factual determination that defendant’s reasons for its actions were not pretextual. Plaintiff asserted that “throughout his employment, defendant breached his contract by engaging in gender, race and age discrimination in determining his compensation.” He further contended “he was subject to retaliation by defendant for his complaints to defendant’s representatives.” Plaintiff alleged “he was paid at lower rates than other partners who were younger, female and not of European descent despite his commensurate or better billing levels and generation of income for the partnership.” On appeal, defendant argued that the trial court erred by failing to find that plaintiff’s claims for breach of his employment contract, promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment, and fraudulent misrepresentation were barred by the applicable statutes of limitation. It asserted that his claims involved “the abrogated continuing wrong doctrine and, thus, should be precluded.” Defendant further asserted that the existence of an express contract barred a number of plaintiff’s claims. “Plaintiff’s contract required periodic calculations of compensation.” The court noted that “contracts that provide for regular or periodic payments have been deemed similar or analogous to installment contracts.” Under “this type of contract, a separate and distinct breach of contract claim is recognized to accrue with each deficient payment.” The trial court properly divided plaintiff’s breach of contract claims into two distinct periods – “(a) those claims that arose more than six years before plaintiff’s filing of a complaint and (b) claims that occurred within the six year period immediately preceding plaintiff’s filing of a cause of action in this matter.” Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.