Jump To

Top Caption Disposition Lead Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 6, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Jasmin Adilovic v. Monroe LLC

Michigan Court of Appeals

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 357342
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Disposition: Vacated and Remanded

• Opinion

• Authorities (4)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (2.4K)

• PDF

Disposition

Vacated and Remanded

Lead Opinion

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

JASMIN ADILOVIC, UNPUBLISHED
March 06, 2026
Plaintiff-Appellant, 10:12 AM

v No. 357342
Kent Circuit Court
MONROE, LLC, LC No. 20-003233-CZ

Defendant-Appellee.

ON REMAND

Before: LETICA, P.J., and PATEL and YATES, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

In our prior opinion in this employment action, we affirmed the trial court’s order granting
defendant’s motion for summary disposition. Factually, plaintiff was hired by defendant on March
15, 2017, as an inventory auditor. On April 27, 2017, plaintiff alleged that he suffered injury in
the course of his employment and made a claim for worker’s compensation benefits that same day.
Defendant terminated plaintiff’s employment on May 8, 2017. On May 4, 2020, plaintiff filed a
complaint alleging wrongful termination from his employment in retaliation for requesting benefits
under the Michigan Worker’s Disability Compensation Act, MCL 418.101 et seq. Although
plaintiff filed suit two years and 361 days after his termination, plaintiff had signed a supplemental
agreement to limit the statute of limitations to six months. Defendant moved for summary
disposition premised on the six-month period of limitations. Plaintiff opposed the dispositive
motion, claiming he did not understand the employment application and supplement because of
his English language limitations, the lack of consideration, and the lack of a valid waiver. The
trial court granted defendant’s dispositive motion. We affirmed, concluding that a 180-day
limitations period was enforceable because the terms of employment became part of the contract
in light of Timko v Oakwood Custom Coating, Inc, 244 Mich App 234, 244; 624 NW2d 101

-1-
(2001).1 Adilovic v Monroe, LLC, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued
July 21, 2022 (Docket No. 357342), slip op at 1-4.

Plaintiff filed an application for leave to appeal with our Supreme Court. In lieu of granting
leave to appeal, the Supreme Court vacated our prior judgment and remanded the case to us for
reconsideration in light of Rayford v American House Roseville I, LLC, ___ Mich __; __ NW3d
___ (2025) (Docket No. 163989). See Adilovic v Monroe, LLC, ___ Mich __, __; 25 NW3d
675 (2025). Applying Rayford, we vacate the trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion for
summary disposition and remand for further proceedings.

In Rayford, the plaintiff, a certified nursing assistant, was hired by the defendant, a nursing
care facility, in February 2017. After being employed for one week, the plaintiff signed an
acknowledgment that any claim or lawsuit arising from her employment must be filed within 180-
days of the employment action. Within a few months of her employment, the plaintiff purportedly
learned of inappropriate behavior between the defendant’s upper management and some
employees, resulting in preferential treatment. She claimed to report this impropriety to the
defendant’s human resources division and the state of Michigan. The plaintiff alleged that the
defendant retaliated against her for the report and caused her to be criminally charged with filing
a false report, but the charge was ultimately dismissed. In April 2020, the plaintiff filed suit
alleging violations of the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.2101 et seq., wrongful
discharge, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process. After the defendant moved for summary
disposition premised on the 180-day limitations period in the employment acknowledgment,
plaintiff countered that the acknowledgment was an unconscionable adhesion contract. The trial
court granted summary disposition in light of the clear and unambiguous language of the
contractual acknowledgment, requiring that suit be filed within six months, and this Court
affirmed. Rayford, ___ Mich at ___, slip op at 2-5.

The Rayford Court adopted the definition of an adhesion contract as “[a] standard-form
contract prepared by one party, to be signed by another party in a weaker position, usu. a consumer,
who must essentially either accede (adhere) to the terms or not have a contract at all.” Id. at __,
slip op at 18 (quotation marks and citation omitted). Contracts in which the employee occupies a
weaker position than the employer deserve “close judicial scrutiny.” Id. at _, slip op at 34. To
ascertain whether a shortened limitations period is reasonable, one must examine whether “(1) the
claimant has sufficient opportunity to investigate and file an action, (2) the time is not so short as
to work a practical abrogation of the right of action, and (3) the action is not barred before the loss
or damage can be ascertained.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). Further, when a party
to a contract has little to no bargaining power, it may be deemed unconscionable, both procedurally
and substantively. Id. at __, slip op at 37-39. When the record lacks development “to determine

1
Timko was overruled in Rayford v American House Roseville I, LLC, ___ Mich __; __ NW3d
___ (2025) (Docket No. 163989), slip op at 40, “to the extent that it could be interpreted as
accepting a shortened limitations period of 180 days as per se reasonable.”

-2-
the reasonableness of the shortened limitations period and whether the provision was
unconscionable,” a remand to the trial court is appropriate. Id. at 33.2

In the trial court, no determination of the reasonableness of the shortened limitations
period or unconscionability occurred.3 Rather, the trial court’s analysis predominantly consisted
of the application of contract law and the enforcement of unambiguous agreement language.
Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion for summary
disposition and remand for application of Rayford.

Vacated and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not retain
jurisdiction.

/s/ Anica Letica
/s/ Sima G. Patel
/s/ Christopher P. Yates

2
In Johnson v Best Buy Company, Inc, ___ Mich App __; __ NW3d___ (2025) (Docket No.
363807), this Court recently applied Rayford to a contractual arbitration provision and determined
that the arbitration provision was reasonable and not unconscionable. Id. at ___; slip op at 5-6.
The Johnson decision does not alter our disposition; it did not involve the reasonableness of a
shortened six-month period of limitations.
3
We granted plaintiff’s request to file a supplemental brief and allowed defendant to file a
responsive brief. Adilovic v Monroe, LLC, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered
November 21, 2025 (Docket No. 357342). Defendant did not file a response brief. In his
supplemental brief, plaintiff urges us to apply the Rayford decision retroactively. We complied
with the Supreme Court order to reconsider our prior judgment in light of Rayford and were not
directed to determine whether Rayford applied retroactively or prospectively. Additionally,
plaintiff requests that we decide issues that were “added” to the application for leave to appeal by
the Supreme Court. Again, we have complied with the Supreme Court’s order by analyzing
Rayford. As an error-correcting court, our review is generally limited to matters decided in the
trial court. See Burns v Detroit, 253 Mich App 608, 615; 660 NW2d 85 (2002). The Court of
Appeals clearly errs when it injects “itself into the role of trier of fact[.]” Bean v Directions
Unlimited, Inc, 462 Mich 23, 35; 609 NW2d 567 (2000). The trial court did not decide issues
related to reasonableness and unconscionability. Accordingly, the proper action is to remand to
the trial court to decide those matters. And while plaintiff requests that we consider a litany of
issues, we reiterate that his complaint did not allege a claim of fraud and did not seek amendment
of the complaint to add that claim.

-3-