Wrongful termination; Retaliation for requesting benefits under the Michigan Worker’s Disability Compensation Act (WDCA); Shortened contractual limitations period; Rory v Continental Ins Co; Presumption that one who signs a written agreement knows the nature of the instrument & understands its contents; Galea v FCA US LLC; Consideration & mutuality; Timko v Oakwood Custom Coating, Inc; Fraud in the inducement; Custom Data Sols, Inc v Preferred Capital, Inc

Holding that the contractual six-month limitations period was enforceable, and that plaintiff-former employee did not “identify a specific clear and convincing statement that” defendant-former employer’s office manager made that induced him to sign the contract, the court affirmed summary disposition for defendant. Plaintiff alleged he was wrongfully discharged “from his employment in retaliation for requesting benefits under the” WDCA. He contended that his contractual “waiver of the statute of limitations was improper because there was a lack of consideration and mutuality of agreement, the waiver was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made, and defendant committed fraudulent or innocent misrepresentation.” The court disagreed. It found that the plain language of the supplement to the application plaintiff signed provided that he “waived any contrary statute of limitations and agreed to a 6-month period of limitations ‘after the the [sic] date of the employment action that is the subject of the claim or lawsuit.’” As to consideration and mutuality, his position was contrary to Timko, which concluded “that even terms contained in the employment application become part of the employment contract.” The supplement began with an “all-capital letter notice that the document had to be signed if plaintiff agreed to the terms of employment.” In addition, it “contained the terms of employment. It outlined the responsibilities of plaintiff during the course of his employment. Thus, additional consideration was not required because the supplement delineated the conditions that plaintiff would abide by while he was at work and for which he received his hourly wage.” As to whether his waiver was freely, knowingly, and voluntarily made, because he “signed the supplement, it is presumed that he was aware of the contents and the failure to read the document is not a defense.” Finally, the court found it “difficult to discern how the office manager committed fraud because the contention that the office manager told him to sign the agreement for his employment is consistent with the instructions on the supplement. That is, in order to obtain the employment, plaintiff had to agree to the terms.”