BARBARA FLOOD V AMP-TECH INC
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
BARBARA FLOOD,
UNPUBLISHED
January 29, 2002
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 227071
Mason Circuit Court
LC No. 99-000551-NZ
AMP-TECH, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Sawyer, P.J., and O’Connell and Zahra, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right the order granting defendant’s motion for summary
disposition. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR
7.214(E).
Plaintiff reported a noxious smell at work, had difficulty breathing and was taken to the
hospital. When she returned to work several days later, she again reported the smell, and
returned to the hospital. Shortly thereafter, her employment was terminated. Plaintiff brought
this action alleging that she was terminated in retaliation for seeking worker’s compensation
benefits.
In Sventko v The Kroger Co, 69 Mich App 664; 407 NW2d 47 (1976), this Court
recognized a public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine when an employee is
retaliated against for having filed a worker’s compensation claim. The Legislature codified the
Sventko holding in MCL 418.301(11). Phillips v Butterball Farms Co, Inc (After Second
Remand), 448 Mich 239, 248; 531 NW2d 744 (1995). The statute provides:
A person shall not discharge an employee or in any manner discriminate against
an employee because the employee filed a complaint or instituted or caused to be
instituted a proceeding under this act or because of the exercise by the employee
on behalf of himself or herself or others of a right afforded by this act. [MCL
418.301(11)].
The statute prohibits discharge or discrimination only in retaliation for prior claims for
worker’s compensation benefits. Wilson v Acacia Park Cemetery Ass’n, 162 Mich App 638,
645; 413 NW2d 79 (1987). A retaliatory discharge premised upon an employer’s anticipation of
-1-
a future claim does not state a cause of action. Griffey v Prestige Stamping, Inc, 189 Mich App
665, 668; 473 NW2d 790 (1991).
Plaintiff filed her claim for worker’s compensation benefits months after she was
terminated. Giving notice of an injury and obtaining medical treatment does not trigger the
statutory protection. The trial court properly granted summary disposition to defendant.
Affirmed.
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
-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.
