WRONGFUL TERMINATION DEMAND LETTER

Michigan Law

[ATTORNEY/FIRM LETTERHEAD]

[Firm Name]
[Address Line 1]
[City, State ZIP]
Tel: [Phone Number]
Fax: [Fax Number]
[Attorney Email]
[Michigan State Bar No.]

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
AND VIA EMAIL TO: [recipient_email]

[Date]

[Employer Contact Name]
[Title]
[Company Legal Name]
[Company Address]
[City, State ZIP]

Re: Wrongful Termination of [Client Full Name]
Former Position: [Job Title]
Dates of Employment: [Start Date] through [Termination Date]
CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT COMMUNICATION - MRE 408

Dear [Mr./Ms./Mx. Last Name]:

This firm represents [Client Full Name] ("our client") regarding [his/her/their] wrongful termination from employment with [Company Legal Name] ("[Company Short Name]") on [Termination Date]. Please direct all further communications to our office.

We write to demand immediate action to remedy the unlawful termination and to resolve this matter short of litigation. [Company Short Name]'s termination of our client violates Michigan law and exposes the Company to substantial liability.

I. MICHIGAN EMPLOYMENT LAW FRAMEWORK

A. At-Will Employment and Its Exceptions

Michigan follows the employment-at-will doctrine. See Lytle v. Malady, 579 N.W.2d 906 (Mich. 1998). However, Michigan courts recognize significant exceptions:

1. Public Policy Exception

Michigan recognizes a broad public policy exception to at-will employment. See Suchodolski v. Mich. Consol. Gas Co., 316 N.W.2d 710 (Mich. 1982). Protected activities include:

• Refusing to violate the law at employer's direction
• Exercising a statutory right
• Reporting criminal activity or public safety violations
• Refusing to commit perjury

2. Legitimate Expectations (Implied Contract)

Michigan recognizes claims based on "legitimate expectations" created by employer policies, handbooks, or representations. See Toussaint v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mich., 292 N.W.2d 880 (Mich. 1980) (seminal case establishing implied contract doctrine).

3. Michigan Whistleblowers' Protection Act (MCL 15.361 et seq.)

The WPA provides robust protection for employees who:
- Report violations of law to public bodies
- Are about to report violations of law
- Are requested by a public body to participate in an investigation

B. Key Michigan Statutes

Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (MCL 37.2101 et seq.)
- Prohibits discrimination based on religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, height, weight, familial status, or marital status
- Covers employers with one or more employees
- 3-year statute of limitations

Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act (MCL 37.1101 et seq.)
- Prohibits disability discrimination
- Requires reasonable accommodation
- 3-year statute of limitations

Michigan Whistleblowers' Protection Act (MCL 15.361 et seq.)
- 90-day statute of limitations
- Provides for reinstatement, back pay, and attorney's fees

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. Employment History

[Client Full Name] was employed by [Company Short Name] from [Start Date] through [Termination Date] as a [Job Title] in [City], Michigan.

Employment Summary:

Our client was a dedicated employee with an excellent performance record:
- [Describe positive performance history]
- [Describe promotions, raises, commendations]
- [Describe any relevant achievements]

B. The Protected Activity / Triggering Event

On or about [Date], our client [describe protected activity]:

• Reported violations of law to [public body/management] under the Michigan Whistleblowers' Protection Act
• Refused to violate Michigan or federal law by [describe illegal act requested]
• Filed a complaint with the Michigan Department of Civil Rights
• Exercised rights under [specific statute]
• [Other protected activity]

C. The Wrongful Termination

On [Termination Date], [Company Short Name] terminated our client, purportedly for [stated reason]. This stated reason is pretextual, as evidenced by:

1. Temporal proximity: The termination occurred just [X days/weeks] after the protected activity
2. Prior positive treatment: Our client had [no prior discipline / positive reviews / recent promotion]
3. Disparate treatment: Similarly situated employees who did not engage in protected activity were [not terminated / treated more favorably]
4. Shifting explanations: [Describe any inconsistent reasons given]
5. Direct evidence: [Describe any statements indicating true motive]

III. LEGAL CLAIMS UNDER MICHIGAN LAW

A. Violation of Michigan Whistleblowers' Protection Act (MCL 15.361 et seq.)

[If applicable:] The WPA prohibits retaliation against employees who report or are about to report violations of law to a public body.

Our client reported [describe violation] to [public body] on [Date]. [Company Short Name]'s termination constitutes unlawful retaliation under MCL 15.362.

Remedies under WPA (MCL 15.364):
- Reinstatement to same or equivalent position
- Back pay with interest
- Full reinstatement of fringe benefits and seniority
- Actual damages
- Reasonable attorney's fees and costs

See Chandler v. Dowell Schlumberger Inc., 572 N.W.2d 210 (Mich. 1998).

B. Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy

[Company Short Name] terminated our client in violation of Michigan's public policy against [describe the public policy violated]:

Source of Public Policy: [Cite Michigan statute, constitutional provision, or court decision]

Michigan recognizes a cause of action for wrongful discharge when an employee is terminated for:
- Refusing to violate the law
- Exercising a statutory right or privilege
- Performing a statutory duty
- Reporting criminal violations to the authorities

See Suchodolski v. Mich. Consol. Gas Co., 316 N.W.2d 710 (Mich. 1982); Clifford v. Cactus Drilling Corp., 353 N.W.2d 469 (Mich. 1984).

C. Breach of Implied Contract - Legitimate Expectations

[If applicable:] Under the Toussaint doctrine, [Company Short Name]'s policies and representations created a legitimate expectation of job security.

Evidence of legitimate expectations:
- Employee Handbook provisions stating [quote relevant language]
- Personnel policies requiring progressive discipline
- Oral representations by [Name] that [describe assurances]
- Company's course of conduct demonstrating just-cause standard

See Toussaint v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mich., 292 N.W.2d 880 (Mich. 1980); Rood v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 507 N.W.2d 591 (Mich. 1993).

D. Violation of Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (MCL 37.2101 et seq.)

[If applicable:] [Company Short Name]'s termination was motivated by discrimination based on [protected characteristic].

ELCRA prohibits employment discrimination based on religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, height, weight, familial status, or marital status.

Evidence of discrimination:
- [Describe discriminatory statements or actions]
- [Describe disparate treatment]
- [Describe statistical evidence if available]

IV. DAMAGES

A. Economic Damages

1. Back Pay

2. Lost Benefits

3. Front Pay

B. Compensatory Damages (Non-Economic)

Our client has suffered severe emotional distress:
- [Describe anxiety, depression, humiliation]
- [Describe impact on health and relationships]
- [Describe medical treatment sought]

Emotional distress damages: $[Amount]

C. Punitive Damages

[Note: Punitive damages are not available under ELCRA but may be available for common law claims where conduct is willful and wanton.]

Punitive damages: $[Amount]

D. Attorney's Fees

Under MCL 15.364 (WPA) and MCL 37.2802 (ELCRA), our client is entitled to reasonable attorney's fees.

Estimated fees through trial: $[Amount]

E. Summary of Damages

V. SETTLEMENT DEMAND

We demand that [Company Short Name] pay $[Settlement Demand Amount] in full settlement of all claims.

Additional Terms:
- Neutral reference (dates and position only)
- No contest to unemployment benefits
- Expungement of personnel file
- Mutual non-disparagement
- Confidentiality (terms to be negotiated)

VI. RESPONSE DEADLINE

Please respond within fourteen (14) calendar days, no later than [Response Deadline Date].

If we do not receive a satisfactory response, we are authorized to file suit in the [Circuit Court for [County] County, Michigan / United States District Court for the [Eastern/Western] District of Michigan] without further notice.

Causes of Action:
1. Violation of Michigan Whistleblowers' Protection Act (MCL 15.361 et seq.)
2. Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy
3. Breach of Implied Contract (Legitimate Expectations)
4. Violation of Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (MCL 37.2101 et seq.)
5. [Other claims as applicable]

VII. DOCUMENT PRESERVATION

Immediately implement a litigation hold to preserve all relevant documents and ESI regarding our client's employment, performance, and termination.

VIII. CONFIDENTIALITY

This letter is protected by Michigan Rule of Evidence 408 and constitutes a confidential settlement communication.

Sincerely,

[Attorney Name]
[Title]
[Firm Name]
[Michigan State Bar No.]

Enclosures:
- Authorization to Represent

cc: [Client Name]
[File]

MICHIGAN-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES (Do Not Include in Final Letter)

Key Michigan Considerations

• Michigan Whistleblowers' Protection Act has only 90-day statute of limitations - act quickly
• Toussaint doctrine (legitimate expectations) is strong in Michigan but requires specific evidence
• ELCRA is broader than Title VII - covers employers with 1+ employees, includes height/weight
• ELCRA has 3-year SOL (longer than federal discrimination statutes)
• No punitive damages under ELCRA, but available for common law claims
• Michigan Department of Civil Rights (MDCR) handles discrimination complaints
• MDCR has 180-day filing deadline; EEOC cross-filing available

Venue Options

• Michigan Circuit Court (general jurisdiction)
• Federal Court (if federal claims or diversity jurisdiction)
• Administrative: MDCR for discrimination claims

Statute of Limitations

Key Michigan Cases

• Toussaint v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mich., 292 N.W.2d 880 (Mich. 1980) (legitimate expectations)
• Suchodolski v. Mich. Consol. Gas Co., 316 N.W.2d 710 (Mich. 1982) (public policy exception)
• Lytle v. Malady, 579 N.W.2d 906 (Mich. 1998) (at-will doctrine framework)
• Chandler v. Dowell Schlumberger Inc., 572 N.W.2d 210 (Mich. 1998) (WPA interpretation)