PHILIP M KELLER V CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PHILIP M. KELLER,
UNPUBLISHED
August 7, 2001
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 223083
Kent Circuit Court
LC No. 95-001019-CL
CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Saad, P.J., and Fitzgerald and O’Connell, JJ.
SAAD, P.J., (concurring).
I reluctantly concur in the result and only because our courts should rarely overturn a jury
verdict. Here, plaintiff produced minimal evidence of a causal relationship between his
complaints that his employer failed to enforce its no smoking policy and subsequent conduct
which plaintiff regarded as retaliatory harassment. Further, what plaintiff regards as harassment
appears to be little more than a personality tug-of-war with his division head. Yet, this judgment
ultimately is for the jury to make, not us. Also, if reasonable minds could differ on whether the
cumulative so-called retaliatory conduct would cause a reasonable employee to leave his job,
then, again, it is for the jury to make this ultimate judgment.
Though it is highly questionable that a reasonable person would react as plaintiff did to
any specific incident or to the specific event leading to the alleged constructive discharge, I
cannot say, with assurance, that reasonable minds could not differ on the ultimate liability
question. Further, while I believe that the dissent makes a valid point regarding constructive
discharge, I must disagree with the dissent in one crucial respect. As I understand the evidence
and the proofs, plaintiff’s claim of constructive discharge went to the jury on the theory that the
cumulative weight of all the events over a five-year period precipitated plaintiff leaving his job.
Had plaintiff quit his job solely for the event that occurred on July 14, 1994, then I would agree
with the dissent that this does not constitute constructive discharge. However, the allegations
and the proofs concern a number of events over a number of years and accordingly, there was
sufficient evidence to go to the jury. Therefore, while I regard the ultimate outcome to be a
miscarriage of justice, I may not substitute my judgment for that of the jury.
/s/ Henry William Saad
-1-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.