Greene v. General Motors Corp.

Michigan Court of Appeals

Greene v. General Motors Corp.

196 N.W.2d 9, 38 Mich. App. 237, 1972 Mich. App. LEXIS 1577

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 26, 1972

DocketDocket No. 12367

StatusPublished

This text of 196 N.W.2d 9 (Greene v. General Motors Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Greene v. General Motors Corp., 196 N.W.2d 9, 38 Mich. App. 237, 1972 Mich. App. LEXIS 1577 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff, an employee of the defendant, brought this action seeking money damages and an injunction. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and we affirm.

On two occasions the plaintiff was stopped by plant security guards as he was attempting to enter the plant after his lunch hour. On each occasion he was asked to open a paper bag he was carrying. He refused to do so. On at least one of these occasions he suffered a short lay-off as a disciplinary measure. The plaintiff now contends that the company’s action was tortious.

An employer may, as a condition of employment, require that an employee submit to a reasonable examination when he enters the plant. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, accompanied by the affidavits required by GCR 1963, 117.3, raising this defense. The point having been put in issue it was necessary for the plaintiff to state with specificity the facts on which he relied. He did not do so. Therefore, summary judgment under GCR 1963, 117.2(3) was appropriate.

Affirmed, costs to the defendant.

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

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff, an employee of the defendant, brought this action seeking money damages and an injunction. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and we affirm.

On two occasions the plaintiff was stopped by plant security guards as he was attempting to enter the plant after his lunch hour. On each occasion he was asked to open a paper bag he was carrying. He refused to do so. On at least one of these occasions he suffered a short lay-off as a disciplinary measure. The plaintiff now contends that the company’s action was tortious.

An employer may, as a condition of employment, require that an employee submit to a reasonable examination when he enters the plant. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, accompanied by the affidavits required by GCR 1963, 117.3, raising this defense. The point having been put in issue it was necessary for the plaintiff to state with specificity the facts on which he relied. He did not do so. Therefore, summary judgment under GCR 1963, 117.2(3) was appropriate.

Affirmed, costs to the defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

196 N.W.2d 9, 38 Mich. App. 237, 1972 Mich. App. LEXIS 1577, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/greene-v-general-motors-corp-michctapp-1972.