ANTOINETTE WRIGHT V DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORP
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
ANTOINETTE WRIGHT,
UNPUBLISHED
December 2, 2004
Plaintiff-Appellant,
No. 249408
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 02-234021-CL
v
DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION and
JUDITH CALIMAN,
Defendants-Appellees.
Before: Meter, P.J., and Wilder and Schuette, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right from the trial court’s orders granting summary disposition in
favor of defendants with regard to plaintiff’s claims of (1) a violation of the Employee Right to
Know Act by virtue of defendant’s having failed to produce plaintiff’s personnel file in a timely
fashion and (2) fraud. We affirm. This case is being decided without oral argument under MCR
7.214(E).
Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred by granting summary disposition in favor of
defendants with regard to her claim under the Employee Right to Know Act and with regard to
her fraud claim. We disagree. A grant of summary disposition is reviewed de novo. Auto Club
Group Ins Co v Burchell, 249 Mich App 468, 479; 642 NW2d 406 (2001).
First, plaintiff’s claim of a violation of the Employee Right to Know Act, predicated on
an alleged violation of MCL 423.503, is unsupportable as a matter of law. This claim is based
entirely on plaintiff having made a verbal request for her personnel file. However, MCL 423.503
provides, in relevant part:
An employer, upon written request which describes the personnel record,
shall provide the employee with an opportunity to periodically review at
reasonable intervals . . . the employee’s personnel record if the employer has a
personnel record for that employee. [Emphasis added.]
Thus, under the plain language of MCL 423.503, a verbal request by plaintiff to view her
personnel file did not trigger a duty to provide access to that file under this statutory provision.
Plaintiff’s policy-tinged arguments that the spirit and purpose of the act support treating her
verbal request as if it were a written request are contrary to the principle that, if statutory
-1-
language is plain and unambiguous, a court should “enforce the statute as written and follow the
plain meaning of the statutory language.” Grossman v Brown, 470 Mich 593, 598; 685 NW2d
198 (2004). Thus, the trial court did not err by granting summary disposition in favor of
defendants with regard to plaintiff’s claim under the Employee Right to Know Act because her
verbal request could not trigger a duty to disclose her personnel file under MCL 423.503.
With regard to plaintiff’s fraud claim, her argument that the trial court erred in summarily
disposing of that claim is based entirely on an alleged promise by defendant DaimlerChrysler
Corporation in June 2000 to produce her personnel file. However, the fraud count of plaintiff’s
complaint contains no allegation even approximating an assertion that such a promise was made
in June 2000. Allegations of fraud that are not specifically pleaded are insufficient to state a
claim. LaMothe v Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 214 Mich App 577, 586; 543 NW2d 42 (1995). Thus,
contrary to plaintiff’s position, the trial court could not have erred by granting summary
disposition in favor of defendants with regard to plaintiff’s fraud claim based on an alleged June
2000 promise that was not specifically pleaded in plaintiff’s complaint.
Affirmed.
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
/s/ Bill Schuette
-2-
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.
