-7-
B. CONSIDERATION AND MUTUALITY
To avoid application of the 6-month period of limitations, plaintiff submits that he accepted
the offer of employment over the phone on March 13, 2017, and signed the supplement on
March 15, 2017. Therefore, plaintiff asserts that he was not given any consideration in exchange
for the terms of the supplement.
As noted, consideration is essentially a bargained-for exchange between the parties, and
consideration by one party generally involves payment of legal tender. Calhoun Co, 297 Mich
App at 13-14. The enforceability of a contract is contingent on consideration, not mutuality of
obligation. Timko, 244 Mich App at 244. A 180-day period of limitations may be enforced even
if listed in the employment application because the terms of the employment application become
part of the contract of employment. Id. An employer provides consideration to an applicant to
support enforcement of the employment application terms through the employment and wages. Id.
In Timko, the plaintiff was 79 years old when he began tool and die work for the defendant
on August 26, 1996. On August 28, 1996, he signed a three-paragraph employment application
which contained a three-paragraph authorization and understanding section. This section provided
that the employment relationship was at-will. Additionally, the agreement delineated that the
plaintiff’s claims had to be brought within 180 days of the event giving rise to his claims or be
barred. On February 7, 1997, the plaintiff was purportedly discharged for unsatisfactory
performance, and on March 3, 1998, he filed suit alleging age discrimination. The defendant
moved for summary disposition, relying on the 180-day period of limitations. Timko, 244 Mich
App at 236-237. The Timko decision was rendered prior to the decision in Rory, and this Court
concluded that there was nothing unreasonable about the 180-day period because it allowed
adequate time for investigation and to file suit. Id. at 238-244.
In addition to challenging the reasonableness of the reduction of the period of limitations,
the plaintiff also alleged that the defendant could not enforce the reduced time period because it
did not have any obligation in the contract. This Court rejected the challenge, stating:
“The enforceability of a contract depends, however, on consideration and
not mutuality of obligation.” This Court previously has recognized that the terms
of an employment application constituted part of an employee’s and employer’s
contract of employment. Here, [the] defendant clearly provided [the] plaintiff
consideration to support enforcement of the terms of the application, specifically
employment and wages. [Id. at 244 (citations omitted).]
In the present case, plaintiff alleged that he received a phone call offering employment,
and he accepted. Accordingly, plaintiff submits there was a lack of consideration for the
supplement because there was no additional consideration offered. However, plaintiff’s position
is contrary to the Timko decision which concludes that even terms contained in the employment
application become part of the employment contract. As noted, the supplement commenced with
the all-capital letter notice that the document had to be signed if plaintiff agreed to the terms of
employment. In addition to limiting the period of limitations to file litigation to six months, the
agreement also advised plaintiff that he was an at-will employee, that his office, locker, or desk
were defendant’s property and subject to inspection, that confidential and propriety information