Emmett Petersen v. WEST MICHIGAN COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH, HAROLD MADDEN, and RICH VANDENHEUVEL

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
File Name: 12a0384n.06
No. 10-2201
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
EMMETT PETERSEN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WEST MICHIGAN COMMUNITY
MENTAL HEALTH, HAROLD MADDEN,
and RICH VANDENHEUVEL,
Defendants-Appellees.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
OPINION
Before: BATCHELDER, Chief Judge; CLAY and GILMAN, Circuit Judges.
RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. In January 2009, after 31 years of employment,
Emmett Petersen was terminated for cause by West Michigan Community Mental Health System
(WMCMH), a state mental-health facility. The basis for his discharge was a violation of WMCMH’s
policy regarding client confidentiality. A month later, WMCMH offered to rehire him as an entry-
level employee at a much lower pay rate on the condition that he execute an agreement releasing
WMCMH from liability for any claims arising out of his previous employment. Petersen executed
the release, was rehired, and remains employed by WMCMH.
He nevertheless maintains that he was wrongfully discharged in January 2009. This caused
him to bring a complaint in Michigan state court against WMCMH, Harold Madden (chairperson
of WMCMH’s board of directors), and Rich Vandenheuvel (WMCMH’s executive director),

-- 1 of 2 --

alleging claims under both 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law. The defendants removed the action to
federal court and then moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
The district court granted their motion, concluding that the release barred Petersen’s § 1983
claim. It then declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims. Petersen
argues on appeal, as he did below, that the release is unenforceable because it lacks consideration
and that he did not voluntarily execute the release due to economic duress.
After carefully considering the record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we
agree with the judgment of the district court. Because the reasoning that supports the dismissal of
Petersen’s claims has been clearly articulated by the district court in a thorough and comprehensive
opinion, the issuance of a detailed written opinion by this court would be unduly duplicative.
Accordingly, the judgment rendered by the Honorable Janet T. Neff, United States District Judge for
the Western District of Michigan, is AFFIRMED on the basis of the reasoning detailed in her
Opinion and Order dated August 10, 2010.
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --