TOV.WrongfulTermination&Discrimination

Court upholds dismissal of ADA and gender disrimination claims.

The Sixth Circuit heard Alisha Regan's appeal of the dismissal of her lawsuit against her former employer Faurecia Automotive Seating, Inc.  The lower cour had found inadequate evidence of gender or disability disrcimination to allow the claim to go to a jury and summarily dismissed it.  Regan appealed, arguing that she had demonstrated a violation of the employer's duty to accommodate her disability. 

Regan suffers from narcolepsy and argued that the employer should accommodate her inability to commute a substantial distance in heavy traffic, for safety reasons.  The employer was making a change to start work one hour later in the morning, however, because the earlier starting time had proved unproductive because materials needed did not arrive from other departments at the earlier hour in the morning.  The Court ultimately concluded that if her condition constituted a "disability" under the ADA, her request exceeded the employer's duty to provide a "reasonable accommodation."

Truckdriver fired after suffering possible stroke cannot sue for wrongful termination

Keith Montgomery sued his employer, the Larry Ross Garage in Wayne County, after his employment was terminated.  He had complained of chest pain and numbness on the left side of his body, admitted himself to the Emergency Room, and his physician deemed it necessary to confirm that he had not suffered a stroke.  After concluding that Montgomery had not suffered a stroke, the doctor wrote a letter to his employer confirming that Montgomery could return to work "without restrictions."   Nevertheless, his employment was immediately terminated, and various conflicting explanations for the termination were offered.

Court dismisses doctor's claims under FMLA and PWDCRA

Pathologist Diana Dimitrov sued her employer, Quest Diagnostics, after she was terminated from employment.  Dimitrov argued that she was dismissed in violation of the Family Medical Leave Act and Michigan's disability discrimination act (the PWDCRA). Dimitrov endured a torn rotator cuff for a number of months before attempting to schedule surgery in December of 2007.  She sought permission to schedule the surgery with a couple weeks' notice, and her supervisor told her to wait until after the holidays as the firm was unable to timely process work if she took leave at the same time that another pathologist was retiring.  She complained about her supervisor's treatment of her claim and argued that because of that  complaint, she was hounded into dismissal a year later, in retaliation.

Supreme Court says church can fire teacher with theological duties, regardless of claimed disability discrimination

A case arising out of a Lutheran school in Redford, Michigan, has resulted in a new ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court with regard to the parameters of separation of church and state. Cheryl Perich taught at the Hosanna-Tabor Church school.  Her duties included 45 minutes of religion-related instruction per week.  

Perich claimed that the church violated federal law by discriminating against her medical disability, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.  She filed an EEOC claim and followed-up with a lawsuit.  The school then fired her for resorting to the Courts to resolve her complaint.  Lower courts had ruled that the Church could be held accountable for a violation of federal law.  The Church appealed, seeking a ruling that under the "ministerial exception" to state and federal law, it had the unfettered right to fire anyone involved in teaching church doctrine, even if the employee's "ministerial" duties were relatively insignificant.

Appellate Court upholds dismissal of workers compensation retaliatory discharge claim.

Jamie Bush sued Peninsular Realty, claiming that the company fired her from her assisted-living employment after she sought medical treatment for an injury suffered at work.  In Michigan, the employer is required to pay certain minimal wage loss and medical benefits to an employee who suffers a work-related injury.  Under the same law, it is illegal to terminate or discipline an employee who initiates a workers comp claim.  Nevertheless, the Appellate panel upheld Bush's dismissal, relying in part on the fact that she was fired after seeking medical treatment, but BEFORE she actually filed a claim for workers compensation payment.

Deaf job applicant cannot prove discrimination when employer defines job to require "good communication skills"

Kelli Rakozy received an inquiry from Advance Print & Graphics and its owner Gary Hambell, expressing interest in employing her as a senior graphics designer.  Hambell did not indicate where he found Rakozy's resume, but based on the resume, he deemed Rakozy qualified to fill the position.  Rakozy responded by e-mail and made an appointment for an interview butdid not tell Hambell that she was deaf.  When Hambell caught on, he terminated the interview and deemed Rakozy unqualified, due to her disability, to communicate effectively with clients.  When she became angry and threatened to sue, he also deemed her to have an "aggressive and punitive personality." 

The Court of Appeals upheld the lower court's dismissal of Rakozy's discrimination claim.  It pointed to precedent granting employers broad discretion in defining the particular job requirements of a proposed position.  On that basis, it could not concluded that Rakozy was deprived the opportunity to apply for a job that was "unrelated to her ability to perform."

Michigan woman's case addressing "ministerial exception" to discrimination claims is argued before US Supreme Court

This week the US Supreme Court heard arguments on the thorny issue of relgious freedom,  where allegations of illegal discrimination are raised.  A Michigan woman, Cheryl Perich, attempted to sue the Lutheran Church where she was a teacher, alleging disability discrimination and illegal retaliation.  Perich claims that she was fired in retaliation for seeking accommodation for her narcolepsy diagnosis.

Company cannot enforce arbitration agreement without proof that employee had "agreed."

Maureen Hergenreder sued Bickfor Senior Living Group alleging she was terminated in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.  The employer argued that she was bound by an arbitration agreement which was included in an "Eby Company Dispute Resolution Procedure" to which reference was made in the Employee Handbook. Hergenreder claimed she had never seen the Dispute Resolution Procedure and knew nothing about its content.  The Defendant claimed it was disseminated to all employees, but could not provide any detail about how or in what manner Hergenreder received a copy.  On this basis, the Sixth Circuit held that Hergenreder could not be claimed to have knowingly waived her constitutional rights. The Court reversed the District Court judge, pointing out that there was no proof that Hergenreder had even been informed of the existence of an "arbitration" agreement--let alon that she had understood and accepted the terms of the agreement.  It is nice to know that there is SOME limitation on what the courts will "presume" an employee has agreed to when the employee accepts an employee handbook with his or her paycheck.

Woman's FMLA and PWDCRA claims are dismissed because she didn't prove employer's knowledge

Valeria Goshton sued Arva Overton, her supervisor, and Blue Cross-Blue Shield, claiming she was terminated, rather than accommodated, when she sought medical leave for a disability--in her case hypertension.  Overton filed an affidavit claiming that she was not aware that Goshton suffered from hypertension, and therefore could not have violated the State's version of the Americans with Disabilities Act.  The Court agreed and dismissed the PWDCRA claim. 

The Court also dismissed the FMLA violation claim, finding that mere "temporal proximity" (i.e., she sought leave and was immediately dismissed) was inadequate to prove a retaliatory motive:  Goshton was required to proffer some other evidence to corroborate the Defendants' discriminatory or retaliatory motive.  Perhaps the Defendants put a memo in Goshton's file, confirming their illegal intent?  Or at least told a friendly co-worker of their violation of the law?  Barring evidence of--metaphorically speaking--blood on the defendants' hands, a plaintiff cannot meet the corroborative requirement tacked to the statute by the Engler Majority of Michigan's Supreme Court.

Supreme Court overturns decision dismissing woman's handicap discrimination claim

A disabled person, Shirley Vinson, sued her employer, ABN Amro, after it terminated her employment.  She alleged that the employer terminated her after eliminating its manual dialing service telephones and incorporated a new phone system with auto dialing that could not be accessed from outside the office. Vinson claimed that the employer made this change for the express purpose of eliminating her employment, since she typically accessed the phone system manually from home.  The Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of Vinson's claim.  Judge Henry Saad and two others concluded that she had not established a prima facie case of discrimination.