Effective mechanisms must be in place which permit the termination of cases which cannot be sustained during the trial process. For example, summary judgment must be made available and consistently applied when a plaintiff has failed to establish fundamental components of proof. Such strict proof burdens could be established through modest changes in the law. If the earlier discussed writing requirement were imposed for wrongful discharge cases, for example, this would at least permit summary judgment in those cases where the plaintiff is unable to even produce a piece of paper to support his contractual claim.

More issues could also be set aside for judicial determination, as opposed to jury determination. When the Michigan Legislature partially restored the workers' compensation exclusive remedy, it designated the judge as the determiner of whether an act was an intentional tort. [50] Similar designation of issues as questions of law, as opposed to fact, could be statutorily established elsewhere, permitting the resolution of such questions before the expensive and unpredictable process of jury trial takes hold. As was discussed earlier in this study, employers are often compelled to settle even the most flimsy cases in order to avoid the costs associated with trial. By making access to trial less automatic, this particularly unfair impact of litigation would become less severe. Fewer cases would be filed merely for their nominal settlement damages, and more employers might be willing to stand up for their rights through tile stage when the judge makes his legal determination.