allowing post-verdict JMOL motion on issue raised in directed verdict motion at close of plaintiffs case but not at close of all evidence
How later courts described this case
- allowing post-verdict JMOL motion on issue raised in directed verdict motion at close of plaintiffs case but not at close of all evidence
- “[w]e find virtually no support for Boynton’s claim that a ‘just cause employment contract’ guarantees permanent employment regardless of changes in economic conditions, absent specific language to that effect”
- detailing situations involving employer-created expectations
- decision to discharge as part of economically motivated reduction in work force not reviewable by jury for “just cause”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
LIVELY, Circuit Judge
concurring.
I concur in the result, since the en banc court agreed unanimously with the panel that the judgment should be reversed because of the district court’s failure to submit to the jury the issue of mitigation of damages.
Nevertheless, I continue to feel that the en banc court should not issue a decision on the applicability of the Toussaint doctrine to the facts of this case, but should await clarification of that doctrine by the Michigan Supreme Court.
This is a diversity case that is controlled by Michigan law. The state courts of Michigan have issued countless opinions, often conflicting, on the application of Tous-saint in various situations. This court’s decision is not binding on any of the state courts, and we are building a separate body of Toussaint law in the federal courts of Michigan. I believe it is essential for the Michigan Supreme Court to clarify this body of law and that it is a poor use of limited resources for this court to deal with these issues in an en banc decision.