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."
Continue reading "Time limit in application for employment is applied to eliminate racial discrimination claim" »
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.
Continue reading "Unpaid commission lawsuit is dismissed because claims weren't raised in arbitration" »
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.
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."
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.
Continue reading "Court dismisses whistleblower claim because employee confused about the name of his employer" »
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.
Continue reading "Wrongful discharge claim is time-barred" »
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.
Continue reading "Court rejects Whistleblower claim as not timely" »