Integration clauses can stop employers enforcing terms scattered across hiring docs
A Michigan court blocked an employer from enforcing a six-month lawsuit deadline in an employment application that the employee's contract prohibited adding.
The Michigan Court of Appeals delivered the decision on February 17, ruling that Acrisure Wallstreet Partners cannot enforce a six-month deadline for filing claims that appeared only in an application form, not in the actual employment agreement the company later gave Ty Mayberry to sign.
The case turns on a scenario familiar to anyone who has run a hiring process: a new employee signs multiple documents on their first day, often within hours of each other, creating a paper trail that can later prove messy to untangle.
When Mayberry accepted a job as Worksite Director at Acrisure Wallstreet Partners in 2018, the insurance brokerage subsidiary required him to complete two separate documents. First came an employment application, which buried a clause requiring him to file any lawsuit about his job within six months. Later that same day, after attending several meetings, Mayberry returned to sign his actual employment agreement.
That agreement said nothing about shortened deadlines. Instead, it declared itself the final word on the terms of his employment, stating it "supersedes any and all prior employment agreements" and cannot be changed except through a written modification that specifically references the contract.
The trouble...
Whistleblower law stands at a crossroads of public integrity, federal enforcement strategy, and individual courage. As new industries, such as telehealth and cryptocurrency platforms, interact wit...