Court holds contract is not a "contract for employment;" interprets to suit employer
In Griffin v. Botsford Hospital, the Plaintiff sued her employer after she was discharged from employment. She argued that the Defendant should not be able to enforce a dramatically shortened (180 day) statute of limitations contained in the Defendant Hospital's employment application. Athough the Hospital-drafted document asserted that "nothing in this application may be construed as a contract between the Botsford Health Care Continuum or its affiliates and myself, for either employment or the provision of any benefits..." the Court held that the 180-day statute of limitations within it could still be enforced as a contract between employer and employee!
The Court also held that the later offer of employment which "contains the entire offer to you and supersedes any other discussions you may have had with us" did not, in fact, supersede the shortened statute of limitations contained in the employment application. Sadly, this is what passes for even-handed justice when Chamber of Commerce/insurance company/Republican-identified judges take the bench.
Write up a one-sided "contract" that favors the company, force prospective employees to give up their rights to be considered for a job, pick and choose the items the company wants to maintain in force, and the little guy be damned.