Publications for Employment Litigation
On June 6, 2018, the Michigan legislature voted to repeal Michigan’s prevailing wage law, which required union scale wages on public construction projects.
It is well established that the Michigan Worker's Disability Compensation Act (the "Act") provides that the recovery of benefits under the Act shall be the injured employee's exclusive remedy against an employer.
Public pension systems are increasingly underfunded. Data released in 2017 indicates that the median state funding ratio (the percentage of assets that a state has available for future payments to retirees) fell to 71.1 percent in 2016, down from 74.5 percent in 2015.
With summer right around the corner, many Michigan employers are staffing up with interns to help out with the workloads, and also as part of recruiting programs.
The United States Supreme Court gave employers a big win this week by ruling, in a 5-4 vote, that employers can enforce agreements that require employees to arbitrate disputes individually and waive the right to pursue such claims in collective or class actions.
By declining to hear 11 closely watched labor cases, the Michigan Supreme Court has made it clear that public employees such as teachers throughout the state can quit their union any time of the year — putting more emphasis on what Michigan’s Right-to-Work law means for public sector employees.
Many people spend more time working at their jobs than they do engaging in any other activity during waking hours. It’s inevitable, therefore, that workers will get hurt on the job.
Sexual harassment is at the top of minds in workplaces across the country. It is up to employers to maintain a safe and secure workplace. This includes stopping sexual harassment from occurring in the first place and taking swift action to mitigate its consequences when it does.
Employees and employers are often of the mistaken belief that an employee cannot be fired while on Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) leave. The truth is that an employee on FMLA leave can be fired, but employers need to be very thoughtful and diligent when taking such action because terminating an employee on FMLA often invites litigation.
While most businesses and business owners have developed a healthy fear of IRS tax audits, the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL) authority to audit 401(k) plans has not drawn the same attention. For the sake of your small business, and your personal finances, this lack of awareness of the DOL's 401(k) money grab must change immediately!
The list of acronyms in the law is long. For employers, some acronyms are more important than others. And in the context of employment litigation, some are crucial. In this and our next two newsletters, we discuss three state statutes that create the potential for expensive lawsuits against employers: The Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act; the Persons With Disabilities Civil Rights Act; and the Whistleblower Protection Act. These statutes are identified by the acronyms ELCRA, PDCRA, and WPA.
Townships have a state constitutional right to "reasonable control" over roads. Townships also have the statutory right to adopt truck route ordinances. What happens if one township’s truck route ordinance effectively pushes commercial traffic into a neighboring township?
Noncompetition agreements typically prohibit an employee or seller of a business to own or work for a competitor of the protected party, and often are of substantial value. However, a Michigan court will only enforce these agreements if they comply with the following four requirements.
The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 applies to all public and private employers in the United States, regardless of size.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, the federal appeals court that governs Michigan, recently addressed the ability to transfer a pregnant employee to a light duty position without the transfer constituting an adverse employment action.
The Sixth Circuit’s decision in Barrett, Melton, Nickens v Whirlpool Corp, Case No. 08-5307 focused on hostile work environment and race discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981
In two cases decided this year, the United States Supreme Court determined that two federal statutes provide a basis for retaliation claims by employees against their employers, although the statutes themselves do not on their face prohibit retaliation.
The Michigan Court of Appeals issued a published opinion on May 22, 2008, which held in a case of first impression that the "ministerial exception" exists in Michigan, and is a bar to inquiry into a religious institution’s motivation for a contested employment decision.
The Sixth Circuit recently decided that Title VII prohibits employers from taking retaliatory action against employees not directly involved in protected activity...