Bob Crownover v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., a New York Corporation

Sixth Circuit

Bob Crownover v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., a New York Corporation

594 F.2d 565, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 16354

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedMarch 9, 1979

Docket77-1028

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 594 F.2d 565 (Bob Crownover v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., a New York Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bob Crownover v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., a New York Corporation, 594 F.2d 565, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 16354 (6th Cir. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs are former full-time employees of defendant Sears, Roebuck and Co. whose employment was terminated on December 26, 1974. They had been hired by Sears as full-time employees under oral employment agreements. The suit was filed in the Michigan State courts and removed by Sears to the federal court under diversity jurisdiction. It is conceded by both parties that Michigan law clearly applies.

The District Judge in this case, after the taking of depositions, granted Sears’ motion for summary judgment. Although there is some doubt as to whether or not appellants’ appeal to this court was timely filed, we have elected to treat it as having been so filed, in view of a confusion on the filing date in the District Court Clerk’s office. It appears to this court that the sole issue presented is whether or not under Michigan law a private employer may terminate an employee at will, there being no written contract of employment.

This record shows that the terminations were based solely upon economic circumstances. Plaintiffs have failed to show any written contract between individual employees and Sears, or any collective bargaining agreement which is alleged to have been violated. We are unable to find, as *566 the District Court was unable to find, any legal basis for appellants’ reliance upon their prior participation in the Savings and Profit Sharing Fund of Sears Employees as having any effect upon creating continuing rights to employment.

Although appellants earnestly argue the injustices of termination of employment without recourse, they do not point to any Michigan law which appears to support their position. To the contrary, the law of the State of Michigan to date appears to be settled that oral employment contracts are terminable at will by either party. Lynas v. Maxwell Farms, 279 Mich. 684, 273 N.W. 315 (1937); Dunn v. Goebel Brewing Co., 357 Mich. 693, 99 N.W.2d 380 (1959); McLaughlin v. Ford Motor Co., 269 F.2d 120 (6th Cir. 1959).

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs are former full-time employees of defendant Sears, Roebuck and Co. whose employment was terminated on December 26, 1974. They had been hired by Sears as full-time employees under oral employment agreements. The suit was filed in the Michigan State courts and removed by Sears to the federal court under diversity jurisdiction. It is conceded by both parties that Michigan law clearly applies.

The District Judge in this case, after the taking of depositions, granted Sears’ motion for summary judgment. Although there is some doubt as to whether or not appellants’ appeal to this court was timely filed, we have elected to treat it as having been so filed, in view of a confusion on the filing date in the District Court Clerk’s office. It appears to this court that the sole issue presented is whether or not under Michigan law a private employer may terminate an employee at will, there being no written contract of employment.

This record shows that the terminations were based solely upon economic circumstances. Plaintiffs have failed to show any written contract between individual employees and Sears, or any collective bargaining agreement which is alleged to have been violated. We are unable to find, as *566 the District Court was unable to find, any legal basis for appellants’ reliance upon their prior participation in the Savings and Profit Sharing Fund of Sears Employees as having any effect upon creating continuing rights to employment.

Although appellants earnestly argue the injustices of termination of employment without recourse, they do not point to any Michigan law which appears to support their position. To the contrary, the law of the State of Michigan to date appears to be settled that oral employment contracts are terminable at will by either party. Lynas v. Maxwell Farms, 279 Mich. 684, 273 N.W. 315 (1937); Dunn v. Goebel Brewing Co., 357 Mich. 693, 99 N.W.2d 380 (1959); McLaughlin v. Ford Motor Co., 269 F.2d 120 (6th Cir. 1959).

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

594 F.2d 565, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 16354, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bob-crownover-v-sears-roebuck-and-co-a-new-york-corporation-ca6-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack