TOV.WrongfulTermination&Discrimination

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.

Employee's race discrimination claim dismissed; FMLA claim needs further development

In Romans v. Mich Dep't of Human Serv, the plaintiff was dismissed from the WJ Maxey Boys Training Center and filed a wrongful discharge suit.  He claimed that he was the victim of racial discrimination and that he was fired, in part, for exercising rights under the Family Medical Leave Act.

With regard to the former claim, he cited the historical attempt to maintain a staff that mirrored the correction center population, i.e., 80% black, as proof that he was mis-treated because he was white.  The Court noted that race appeared to play no role in the disciplinary actions taken against Romans and that there was ample foundation for his supervisors' actions.  With regard to the FMLA claim, however, the Court sent the case back for further development.

The apellate judges pointed out that Romans insisted on leaving, rather than pulling a double shift, because he had been informed of his mother's hospitalization and potentially her impending death.  Romans claimed that he needed to attend to his mother's needs despite the fact that his sister was already present at the hospital.  The lower court had suggested that the sister's presence obviated any FMLA basis for refusing to cover the back-to-back shift when a replacement did not show up:  on appeal the higher court held that Romans had raised a valid FMLA claim despite the sister's presence at the hospital.

Sixth Circuit thoroughly addresses Family Medical Leave Act

In Carl L. Thom, Jr. v. American Standard, Inc., the Sixth Circuit was forced to critically analyze the consequences of confusion regarding when an employee must return from an FMLA leave.  Ultimately, the Court upheld the lower court's determination that American Standard committed a violation of the act and its calculation of damages, although it reversed the court's failure to award FMLA liquidated damages.

Federal Court upholds dismissal of claim raised by woman terminated on return from medical leave

Gwendolyn Donald was an Assistant Manager for Sybra, Inc., doing business as Arby's. In the previous two years, she had experienced serious health problems associated with ovarian cysts, renal stones and a gall bladder surgery.  She had missed a total of more than eight weeks' work.  In February of 2008, she had trouble with renal stones on her scheduled days off and informed her employer.  In the meantime, the employer had begun to investigate her, it claimed, because of a $4.00 or $5.00 discrepancy in her cash drawer; her supervisor testified that he suspected her of improperly discounting meals and pocketing the difference.  When Donald returned to work on the 29th of February, she was fired.

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.

Court finds no discrimination in corporation's treatment of foreign workers

Michael Haase and Andre Ley are German engineers who were given temporary work assignments by their employer, IAV GmbH in the United States.  Under the terms of their work assignments, they had the right to return to equivalent jobs in Germany after their temporary U.S. assignment ended.  They claimed that they suffered health problems as a consequence of volatile organic compounds (VOC) in the U.S. building where they were assigned to work, however, the employer could not substantiate the cause of the problem.  They were "accommodated" by voluntary leaves under the FMLA until assignments were located off-site with customers.

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.

School employee wins case over annual renewal language in contract

Jodie Journey sued the Beecher Community School District after it attempted to terminate her employment.  The parties had signed a one-year contract that was automatically renewed, year-to-year, unless notice of non-renewal was served.  The School served such a notice in the spring of 2006, but rescinded that decision and employed Journey as a health coordinator for 2007. In the summer of 2007, it did not serve a notice of non-renewal, but refused to employ Journey on the basis that it was changing its "Early Childhood Program," eliminating her position, and taking applications for a new position termed a Team Leader.

The Court held that under existing precedent and statutory interpretation, the school was obligated to send a new notice of non-renewal after voiding the initial notice and re-employing Journey for the 2006-2007 school year.

City can require employees to provide medical information to direct supervisor after missing 3 work days

The City of Columbus, Ohio, instituted a policy under which any employee who missed three consecutive work days was required to provide a physician's  report to the employee's direct supervisor.  The employees argued that providing the required medical information to the supervisor, rather than to the personnel office, constituted an unwarranted invasion of privacy and a violation of federal law.  The trial court agreed, and granted an injunction limiting the information the employees were required to provide to the direct supervisor.  On appeal, the judges of the Sixth Circuit--all Republican appointees (Suhrheinrich, McKeague and Griffin)-- overturned the lower court's decision.  They held that it was not an invasion of privacy or a violation of federal law to require the disclosures ordered by the City.

Whistleblower claim dismissed where patient care associate cannot prove supervisor knew of complaints

Ava McBrayer sued the Detroit Medical Center after she was fired from her job at Harper Hospital.  McBrayer had worked at DMC from 1999 to 2007.  From 2000 until the child's death in 2007, McBrayer's child was treated at the DMC for leukemia. McBrayer wrote a series of complaints to her employer and to outside entities, criticizing the DMC for its treatment of her daughter and also complaining of its alleged denial of leave time to McBrayer under the Family Medical Leave Act. 

After the child's death, McBrayer transferred from Childrens Hospital to Harper; and soon after the transfer she became embroiled in a scheduling conflict with her supervisor.  She was terminated.  She believed that she was fired, in part, for her past complaints.  The lower court held that since McBrayer could not prove that the terminating officers knew about her complaints, McBrayer could not have a trial to determine whether her dismissal was retaliatory.  Her claim was dismissed, as was her appeal.