Six-month period of limitations in an employment agreement; Rayford v American House Roseville I, LLC; “Adhesion contract”; Reasonableness of the shortened limitations period; Michigan Worker’s Disability Compensation Act (WDCA); Timko v Oakwood Custom Coating, Inc

On remand from the Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of Rayford, the court vacated the trial court’s order granting defendant-former employer’s summary disposition motion and remanded for application of Rayford. On 4/27/17, “plaintiff alleged that he suffered injury in the course of his employment and made a claim for worker’s compensation benefits that same day. Defendant terminated” his employment on 5/8/17. On 5/4/20, “plaintiff filed a complaint alleging wrongful termination from his employment in retaliation for requesting benefits under the Michigan” WDCA. Although he filed suit 2 “years and 361 days after his termination, plaintiff had signed a supplemental agreement to limit the statute of limitations to six months. Defendant moved for summary disposition premised on the six-month period of limitations. Plaintiff opposed the dispositive motion, claiming he did not understand the employment application and supplement because of his English language limitations, the lack of consideration, and the lack of a valid waiver. The trial court granted defendant’s dispositive motion.” The court previously “affirmed, concluding that a 180-day limitations period was enforceable because the terms of employment became part of the contract in light of” Timko. The court now noted that Timko was overruled in Rayford, and that in “the trial court, no determination of the reasonableness of the shortened limitations period or unconscionability occurred. Rather, the trial court’s analysis predominantly consisted of the application of contract law and the enforcement of unambiguous agreement language.”  Under Rayford, when “the record lacks development ‘to determine the reasonableness of the shortened limitations period and whether the provision was unconscionable,’ a remand to the trial court is appropriate.”