TOV.WrongfulTermination&Discrimination

Time limit in application for employment is applied to eliminate racial discrimination claim

Stephania Donald was hired as a youth care worker by Wolverine Human Services in 2007.  Two years later she was fired.  She claimed that she was passed over for promotion and then fired as a result of racial discrimination.  Unfortunately for her, when she applied for work in 2007, the employer's employment application "allowed" her to contract away her civil rights by requiring her to waive any wrongs done to her if she didn't sue within 180 days.  Since she didn't immediately sue when she was passed over or when she was fired, she was not allowed to bring any action against the employer.  The normal time limits (usually three years) contained in state and federal law were "waived." 

Claim of unlawful discharge based on false drug test result is dismissed based on contract limitation period.

Antoine Guilder sued his employer, United Solar Ovonic, and the Pontiac Osteopathic Hospital.  He alleged that he was wrongfully terminated, based on the employer's mistaken claim that he had "alter[ed] a drug test" administered by Pontiac Osteo on behalf of the employer. The Court of Appeals judges hearing his appeal pointed out that the "Engler Majority" of Michigan's Supreme Court had decided, in 2005, that employers and insurers can arbitrarily shorten statutes of limitations in employment and insurance contracts.  In Guilder's case, United Solar's employment contract required that he sue within six months, or his claim would be dismissed as "stale."  It also protected any agent or employee of United Solar. Thus, even if Guilder was wrongfully fired due to a misunderstanding between the employer and its drug-testing agent, Michigan law allowed him no recourse.

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. 

Whistleblower claim dismissed because it wsa not filed within 90 days

Aaron Wajer attempted to sue Outdoor Adventures, Inc., Greg King, Heather Foco and Ron Penix, alleging that they violated the Whistleblower Protection Act when they  terminated his employment.  Apparently, Wajer had reported some form of illegal activity to the civil authorities and claimed that he was fired in retaliation.  Nevertheless, his case  was dismissed because he didn't get his suit filed until almost 120 days after he was fired.

Wajer and his attorneys attempted to argue that he should be able to maintain an action because the employer had commited a "continuing violation" which should extend the statute of limitations.  The Court of Appeals rejected this claim, pointing out that the Republican Engler Majority on Michigan's Supreme Court had ruled in 2005 that the "continuing violation" doctrine "has no continued place in the jurisprudence of this state."  On the basis of that ruling, for example, a doctor who makes a continuing misdiagnosis, a lawyer whose misjudgment continues throughout his representation of a client, or a trespasser who builds a structure that continuously intrudes on a neighbor's land, is immune from liability if the statute of limitations has run from the first day of the negligent or wrongful act---regardless of how long the error continues.  The Engler Majority compounded the effect of this limitation by eliminating the common law right of a victim to sue on many theories of liability when the victim "discovers" a wrongful act that he or she  had not previously been aware of.

Court upholds dismissal of Caterillar 1992-1998 retiree claims

Caterpillar retirees have sued the company to enforce its promise of life-long health benefits.  The claims of one sub-class of the group of retirees, those who retired between 1992 and 1998, were dismissed by the U.S. District Court in Tennessee.  On appeal, the Sixth Circuit upheld the lower court's ruling that the statute of limitations had run on this group of retirees, before they filed the class action suit.

Statute of limitations for Whistleblower runs from date of termination, not suspension

Jane Mortimer alleged that she was terminated from her employment as the Alpena County Probate Court Register in retaliation for questioning the judge's practice of appointing "standby" guardians.  She was suspended with pay on May 19, 2008, but was not terminated until June 21, after she failed to respond to a proposed set of conditions.  She filed a lawsuit on September 11, however the trial court granted the Defendant's motion for summary disposition based on failure to comply with the 90-day statute of limitations for a whistleblower claim.  The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's decision and distinguished this case from a prior case where the court defined the "date of discharge" as the "last day worked."  The panel considered another prior case to be more persuasive precedent, where no discharge act had been completed on the "last day worked." 

Court dismisses whistleblower claim because employee confused about the name of his employer

Kenneth Johnson sued Hungry Howie's in Wexford County Circuit Court, alleging that he was wrongfully fired from his job.  Johnson alleged that he was entitled to Whistleblower's protection, therefore requiring him to file his suit within 90 days of the termination.  He filed within the deadline, but mistakenly identified his employer as "Hungry Howie's Properties, Inc." rather than "Hungry Howie's PIzza & Subs, Inc."  Both corporations are located at the same office and share the same telephone number.  Most likely, for tax purposes, one corporation owns the real estate and the other runs the business but their ownership is probably virtually identical.  The Circuit Court and the Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of Johnson's claim, based on Johnson's naming of the wrong corporate defendant during the short statutory limitation period.

Wrongful discharge claim is time-barred

In Flanagan v. Comau Pico, et al., the plaintiff filed suit 23 months after his termination by defendants, claiming that the parties' Wisne Shop Employee Handbook created a legitimate expectation of just cause employment. (In appropriate cases, a graduated discipline policy or promises of continued employment intended to encourage productivity can create an implied promise of just-cause termination, only.) 

The trial court noted that under tort "reform" decisions of the Michigan Supreme Court, the public policy of Michigan presumes that all employees are "at will" and may be fired without cause.  The Defendant argued this Michigan law should apply, and the trial court agreed, holding that Flanagan had not overcome the "at-will" presumption. This decision was appealed.

Court rejects Whistleblower claim as not timely

In Gilmore v. Big Brothers/Big Sisters of Flint, Inc. and Sylvester Jones, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's decision granting summary disposition to the defendants.   Gilmore had sued for wrongful termination and violation of the Whistleblower's Protection Act (WPA).  Defendant Jones claimed Gilmore was fired for disclosing confidential client information; Gilmore claimed she was terminated for complaining about and threatening to report her suspicions of misappropriation of funds by Jones.