TOV.WrongfulTermination&Discrimination

Sexual harassment claim against school system is dismissed.

Cindy Spohn sued the Van Dyke Public Schools, her employer, arguing that it allowed teacher Donald Colpaert to sexually harrass her.  Her claim was dismissed and she appealed to the Court of Appeals.  The latter court, including arch-conservative Judge Kirsten Kelly, deemed the actual facts of harassment "irrelevant" and did not include them in the appellate opinion.

The Court held that when Spohn and her husband filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy and did not list her harassment claim as an asset of her estate, she waived any right to pursue the claim. On that basis, the Court upheld the grant of summary disposition to the school system and Colpaert.  It deemed her failure to list the lawsuit as an asset in bankruptcy constituted a judicial estoppel against pursuing the claim.  Spohn's argument that a time overlap caused by delay in the ultimate resolution of her bankruptcy claim was caused by the bankruptcy trustee, that her actions were consistent given her state of knowledge at the time, and that the Defendants were in no way prejudiced by any actions she took in bankruptcy court, were to no avail and her claim was dismissed with prejudice.

Court dismisses female principal's gender discrimination claim against School System

Kimberley Ann Hart sued the Goodrich Area Schools and the President of the School Board alleging gender discrimination.  One month after executing a new one-year contract with Hart, the Board suspended her with pay and banned her from the school premises.  No fool, Hart immediately began applying for other jobs and secured a three-year contract with another school district at a higher pay rate.  She then sued her past employer, alleging that it had illegally discriminated against her and retaliated when she complained.

Wal-Mart ordered to pay $4.8 million in back wages to employees illegally denied overtime

Last week, the Department of Labor ordered Wal-Mart to pay some 4,500 vision center employees overtime after they were improperly classified as "supervisory" employees not entitled to overtime.  The average employee will receive between $200 and $2,500 dollar in back pay. Wal-Mart was also fined $464,000.00 in civil penalties.

Sixth Circuit dismisses age discrimination claim brought by air traffic controller

In the case entitled Yeschick v. Mineta, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of Mr. Yeschick's age discrimination claim.  Yeschick was a member of the air traffic controllers union when President Reagan fired them for conducting an unauthorized strike.  Reagan also prohibited the union members from applying for re-employment.  That ban was overturned by President Clinton ten years later and Mr. Yeschick applied for re-employment.  When he was passed over by the FAA, he filed an EEOC claim and then a lawsuit.

Employee who loses arbitration had only 21 days to file lawsuit

Firefighter-EMT Kevin Leverett sued his former employer, Delta Township in Clinton County, alleging that his employer violated their severance agreement by disparaging his abilities to prospective employers.  The agreement clearly prohibited either party from making disparaging statements about the other, and when Leverett was being evaluated for employment by the East Lansing Fire Department, an interview with his former employer resulted in the ELFD deciding not to hire him. 

The ELFD Chief explained that the Township Fire Chief attributed Leverett's termination to an inability to separate his personal life from his work duties, and characterized this as a "large deterrent" from hiring Leverett.  The ELFD's chief twice referred to Leverett's "dismissal."  Despite this disparaging characterization of the severance and the ELFD's characterization of the report received from the Township, an arbitrator ruled that the Township had not violated the severance agreement.

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 sends contract interpretation back to the Circuit Court for factual analysis

David Sutherland sued his prior employer, Powersports of Monroe, doing business under several other names, alleging that his five-year employment contract was illegally terminated without payment of full compensation.  The Defendants argued that Sutherland had earned more compensation than the five-year contract provided, and sought summary disposition. 

The Monroe Circuit judge dismissed Sutherland's claim but the Court of Appeals reversed and sent the case back to the trial judge.  The appellate court held that Sutherland had raised material questions of fact regarding his claim of a companion contract for the payment of commissions and regarding his entitlement to a $50,000.00 "termination payment" for discharge "without cause."

Whistleblower claim dismissed; employer successfully disputes cause of termination

Carlos Prieskorn sued the University of Michigan Health System, arguing that it violated the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA) when it fired him during his probationary period.  Prieskorn, a phlebotomist, alleged that the University fired him for reporting patient-safety violations and time-card fraud, but the courts didn't buy his claim.  The University alleged that it terminated Prieskorn for secretly taping a conversation with another staff member and for misleading another employee into giving up hours, falsely claiming that he was acting on a supervisor's order.

The court concluded that there was no question of fact regarding the reason for Prieskorn's firing, even though the supervisor admitted that Prieskorn had reported safety violations and that he was simply tired of Prieskorn's complaining.

 

Two small court victories for employees

This week, employees won two relatively small battles in the current "culture war" between employers who will take money anywhere they can snitch it and employees who can be powerless to defend their interests.  On the same day that big shot chef Mario Batali paid $5.5 million dollars to settle a claim by employees of his eight restaurants that he was stealing their tip money on a systematic basis, Wal-Mart approved a $13.5 million dollar settlement in a suit claiming that it was over-charging employees for 401(k) fees.  K-Mart's "fiduciary" Merrill Lynch (now a part of Bank of America) was the Plan Trustee, if you can imagine, and will pay 10 million dollars of the latter settlement. 

It isn't enough that employers no longer substantially contribute to employees' retirement:  now, we have to fight to assure that they don't steal the money that the employees contribute.  In a footnote, apparently Wal-Mart still uses Bank of America to administer the plan.  And by the way, legislators in Florida have introduced a bill to reduce the minimum wage for tipped employees to less than three bucks per hour. 

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.