## Facts

- Kenneth Bankey worked as a salesman for Storer Broadcasting Company for about 13 years and was terminated on March 23, 1981.
- Storer issued a 1980 Personnel Policy Digest stating employees could be discharged only “for cause.”
- In 1981, Storer issued a revised digest removing the “for cause” language and stating employment was “at the will of the company.”
- After the revision, Storer terminated Bankey, citing poor job performance.
- Bankey alleged Storer maintained a “just cause” discharge policy on which he relied, creating an enforceable limitation on discharge under Michigan law.

## Issues

1. Whether an employer whose written policies created an enforceable “for cause” limitation on discharge may later unilaterally change the policy to at-will for existing employees without having expressly reserved that right from the outset.
2. If unilateral change is permitted, whether and what type of notice to employees is required for the change to become legally effective.

## Decision

- The Michigan Supreme Court answered the certified question “yes,” subject to a condition.
- An employer may unilaterally change a written discharge-for-cause policy to an at-will policy for existing employees even without an express initial reservation of the right to do so.
- The change is legally effective only if the employer provides affected employees reasonable notice of the change, given uniformly.
- The court supplied this state-law rule for the federal appellate court to apply; it did not resolve the merits of Bankey’s individual claim.

## Legal Principles

- Personnel-policy-based “for cause” protections enforceable under Toussaint are not immutable; the employer may prospectively modify or revoke them.
- A unilateral shift from “for cause” to at-will employment requires reasonable, uniformly given notice to affected employees to be legally effective.
- The enforceability of such policies is tied to the employer’s maintenance of the policy and the benefits the employer obtains by promulgating it; when the policy is withdrawn prospectively with proper notice, the basis for continued enforcement ends.
- The law distinguishes permissible prospective changes from impermissible retroactive impairment of accrued rights.

## Conclusion

Michigan law permits an employer to prospectively revoke a Toussaint-based discharge-for-cause policy and restore at-will employment for existing employees, even without a prior express reservation, but only if the employer gives reasonable and uniform notice of the change.


In re Certified Question (Bankey v. Storer Broad. Co.), 432 Mich. 438, 443 N.W.2d 112 (Mich. 1989)