## Facts

- Joan Hetes worked as a receptionist for a law firm from September 1983 until May 9, 1984.
- No written employment contract existed; the firm provided an office manual describing duties but not termination procedures.
- Before hire, Hetes had at least two conversations with firm representatives and testified she was told she would have a job “as long as [she] did a good job.”
- Hetes was discharged on May 9, 1984; the circumstances of the discharge were disputed.
- Hetes sued alleging breach of an oral employment contract (including termination in bad faith and without just cause and failure to pay hospitalization benefits) and emotional distress, including intentional infliction of emotional distress; a libel count was dismissed by stipulation.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to defendants, characterizing the arrangement as a “satisfaction” contract permitting termination at any time without just cause.

## Issues

1. Whether oral assurances that the employee would have a job “as long as [she] did a good job” could be interpreted as a just-cause limitation on discharge, creating a triable fact issue and barring summary judgment on the contract claim.
2. Whether the pleadings and record supported an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim or otherwise allowed emotional-distress damages in connection with the alleged contract breach.

## Decision

- The Michigan Court of Appeals treated the ruling as summary disposition based on no genuine issue of material fact (GCR 1963, 117.2(3), now MCR 2.116(C)(10)).
- The court reversed summary judgment on the breach-of-contract claim, holding a jury could reasonably interpret the “as long as you do a good job” assurance as a promise not to discharge absent just cause.
- The court affirmed summary judgment on the emotional-distress claim, holding the allegations were insufficient to state intentional infliction of emotional distress and that mental-distress damages are not recoverable for contract breach without independent tortious conduct.
- The case was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

## Legal Principles

- On summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), a court must view the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and deny relief where a genuine issue of material fact exists.
- Oral employer representations may create an enforceable just-cause employment contract, depending on how a reasonable factfinder could interpret the parties’ intent.
- Characterizing job-security language as purely “satisfaction” based is improper where the representation could reasonably be understood as an objective just-cause limitation on discharge.
- Emotional-distress damages are not recoverable for breach of an employment contract absent separate tortious conduct.
- A claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress requires legally sufficient allegations beyond generalized assertions such as loss of self-esteem.

## Conclusion

The court held that disputed evidence about preemployment assurances created a jury question on whether the parties formed an oral just-cause employment contract, but it rejected emotional-distress recovery because the complaint did not adequately plead an independent tort.


Hetes v. Schefman & Miller Law Off., 152 Mich. App. 117, 393 N.W.2d 577 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986)