Timika Rayford v American House Roseville 1, LLC


The plaintiff, a certified nursing assistant, was terminated from her position at a nursing care facility. The facility justified her firing by claiming she falsely reported that her purse was stolen from their premises. However, the plaintiff contended that this accusation was just pretext, and the real reason for her termination was that she reported sexual misconduct involving the facility’s upper management to human resources and state authorities.

Following her termination, the plaintiff was accused by the facility of making a false police report, leading to criminal charges against her. These charges were later dropped when the facility failed to produce evidence (specifically, video footage) supporting their accusation.

Almost three years after her termination, the plaintiff sued the facility, alleging several claims including civil rights violations under the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, wrongful discharge, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process. When she filed her lawsuit, she faced a significant legal hurdle: the facility pointed to a clause in the employee handbook she acknowledged shortly after being hired, which limited the timeframe to bring any legal action against the employer to six months from the event giving rise to the lawsuit.

Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of her lawsuit based on this six-month contractual limitation. They rejected her arguments that the contract was unconscionable and that such a short limitation period should not legally restrict an employee’s ability to bring civil rights claims.

The plaintiff has appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court, challenging the enforceability of such contractual limitations. The Supreme Court has taken interest in this case to decide on broader issues, particularly whether such limitations clauses in employment agreements violate public policy, and whether they are legally binding, especially when they significantly shorten the time employees have to assert their civil rights claims.

The resolution of this case by the Michigan Supreme Court will not only determine the outcome for the plaintiff but also set a precedent affecting how similar cases are handled in Michigan, particularly concerning the balance between contractual rights and protections under civil rights laws.

The following two tabs change content below.

Carla D. Aikens, P.L.C.

When it comes to the mission and values of the law firm of Carla D. Aikens, P.L.C., there are two words which provide the foundation for everything we do: honesty and integrity. We would be honored to represent you with honesty and integrity in every facet of your case. Please do not hesitate to give us a call or send us an email to schedule your free consultation.

Latest posts by Carla D. Aikens, P.L.C. (see all)