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.

Employee must sue a second time to recover sick pay under prior settlement agreement

Deborah Omokehinde settled her claim with the Detroit Board of Education under a release and agreement that the Board would "restore her sick days, personal days, vacation days, and seniority..."  She was forced to sue the following year, claiming that the Board had reneged on the agreement and failed to pay sick days, make a retirement contribution for her, or authorize her to receive a pension.  The trial judge held that these duties were implicitly included in the settlement agreement and awarded the plaintiff summary disposition.  On appeal, the Court reversed, holding that inclusion of these related pension rights must be supported by further factual development and that Omokehinde must also prove that the failure to receive sick pay was not a result of her own failure to file medical support for the claim.

Doctor's employers found guilty of violation of FMLA and of underpaying him

MichaelM. Jadali, D.O., was employed by Michigan Neurology Associates, P.C., when in close succession he underwent an emergency appendectomy and his wife miscarried a baby.  Under his employment agreement with the 90 percent owner of the firm, Dr. Thomas Giancarlo, Jadali would have earned about $350,000.00 in the third year of his contract, however, the parties could not agree on terms for a subsequent year and Jadali was discharged.  Giancarlo then "adjusted" Jadali's third-year compensation to deduct his pension contribution of more than $10,000.00.  He also denied payment of Jadali's final months' receipts because they were paid to the firm after Jadali was no longer employed  by the firm.  In addition, he charged Jadali a penalty of $11,000.00 for missed productivity while Jadali missed work with the appendectomy and miscarriage.  Jadali filed suit and a jury found in his favor on all of these "deductions," awarding him a significant verdict.  Giancarlo appealed.

Court of Appeals enforces six-month statute of limitations in employment application

Kimberly Hardy sought to pursue a lawsuit against her employer, St. John Health, after her job was terminated.  The Court of Appeals rejected her lawsuit because she "agreed" to a six-month statute of limitations on claims against her employer in her employment application.  This is the Dickensian world we live in:  Hardy was "free" to bargain away her civil rights in return for being "considered" for a job.  A six-month limitation period is neither "procedurally nor substantively unconscionable," according to insurance lawyer-judges, and therefore does not violate public policy.

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.

Disability claim denied: three IMEs establish continuing disability but none confirm permanent

Sandra Ann Monroe filed a disability claim in the circuit court after the State Employees Retirement Board denied her application for retirement disability benefits.  Monroe was a nurse at the Alger Maximum Correctional Facility in 2007 when she was suspended and then terminated for undisclosed reasons.  Soon after, she sought disability benefits based on a major depressive disorder.  Ultimately, the SERB sent her for three separate "independent" medical examinations by doctors of the board's choosing. All three physicians concluded she was disabled but offered hope that her disability "could" end within 4-12 months with proper treatment and therapy.  Because none of the physicians concluded that she was "permanently" disabled, the Court of Appeals upheld the Circuit Court's judgment that she was not entitled to disability benefits.

U.S. Supreme Court throws out Wal-Mart gender discrimination class action suit.

In a widely-anticipated 5-4 decision, the conservative Supreme Court majority took another shot at workers' rights and the middle class by dismissing the class action filed by Wal-Mart female employees against the company.  The workers alleged that Wal-Mart policies and practices resulted in wide-spread and pervasive discrimination against women.  The Plaintiffs had hoped to pursue the claim on behalf of 1.5 million female employees who were similarly disadvantaged by gender discrimination. 

Labor lawyers expressed widespread agreement that the decision will prevent many class actions where disadvantaged consumers or employees cannot afford to pursue an individual claim.

Unpaid commission lawsuit is dismissed because claims weren't raised in arbitration

Two brothers whose businesses worked together had a falling out and eventually  Paul and William Hindelang went to arbitration to sort out who owed what to whom.  Eventually, an arbitrator they had agreed upon ruled that William's business owed Paul's business nearly 1.2 million dollars in fee over-charges.  William then sued Paul to recover commissions he claimed were owed to him for the same work. 

Doctor who violates non-compete agreement cannot obtain tax information or explore employment-related sexual activity of employer-CEO

Opthalmologist David Krebs worked for Great Lakes Eye Institute and signed an agreement that promised he wouldn't compete with his employer for two years.  The agreement also prohibited him from using his employer's customer list for purposes of competing with the employer.  After about nine years with the firm, Krebs started his own practice and invited his patients to move to the new practice with him.  The employer sued him to require payment of the liquidated damages in his contract (basically  40% of his gross receipts for 12 months or $200,000.00, whichever is greater).  Krebs attempted to justify his move by documenting sexual relationships occurring between the Great Lakes' CEO, Shokoohi, and staff employees.  Krebs claimed these affairs created liability exposure in the employer which devalued the company stock which he would have the right to purchase under the contract. 

Doctor who gave up existing practice cannot sue Henry Ford for breach of employment promise

The Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of Danita Peoples-Peterson's breach of contract and promissory estoppel claims against the Henry Ford Health System.  Peoples-Peterson is a dermatologist who built an independent practice in Midland.  She opted out of Medicare, which carries a two-year mandatory term, several months before Henry Ford indicated interest in hiring her.  She made preliminary moves toward closing her Midland practice, however Henry Ford's Chief Operating Officer developed cold feet about the hiring when he realized the doctor would go a number of months before she could begin treating Medicare patients.  Henry Ford then pulled the employment offer off the table and Peoples-Peterson sued.