TOV.WrongfulTermination&Discrimination

Court holds Fair Labor Standards Act does not apply to salaried trainer earning $35,000.00; he is ineligible for overtime pay

In Muscat v. Minacs Group USA, Inc., the plaintiff argued that he was entitled to be paid overtime.  He was in charge of a training group of 25-30 people at a time.  He was allowed some discretion in how fast training should proceed, and in motivating and disciplining the group's individuals.  He also made recommendations regarding hiring and firing. 

The Court held that because he was directly engaged in personnel management, he was exercising "discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance," and therefore he was not subject to overtime under the FLSA. 

Court holds that employer had sole right to interpret contract obligation and employee-doctor could not seek independent review by court

In Taylor v. Spectrum Health Primary Care Partners, the plaintiff doctor sued his former employer after his contract of employment was discontinued.  He had signed an employment contract that allowed him to be fired under three conditions, one of which was a "serious, intentional violation of the standards of patient care."  The Hospital pointed to this provision to support its termination, and the Board of Directors of the Hospital voted to uphold the termination on internal review.

Because the contract expressly designated the Hospital's own Board of Directors  "as the entity empowered to determine" whether such a violation had occurred, the Court of Appeals ruled that the doctor lacked standing to seek review by an independent jurist.  The Court further held that since the contract provided for this form of decision-making, there was no "dispute" under the contract, and therefore the doctor also could not seek review by an arbitrator--as provided under the contract.

Court rejects Michigan Compensation Appellate Commission denial of unemployment to woman who was too sick to work

Aisha Nichols was fired because she called in sick once too often.  Her employer, Auto Club Services, Inc., had a zero tolerance "no fault" policy relating to excessive absenteeism.  When she experienced a "thyroid storm" and called in sick, she was fired.  She subsequently applied for unemployment.  The employer stipulated that her absences were medically related, but argued that they constituted "misconduct" that rendered her ineligible for unemployment benefits under the more restrictive standard adopted by the Republican majority in the Legislature. 

A Republican-appointee Administrative Law Judge agreed and the Republican-dominated MCAC affirmed that decision.  She appealed and the Court of Appeals overturned the holding.  The appellate judges noted that a "claimant's tardiness or absences cannot support a finding of statutory misconduct unless it is determined that they are without good cause."  On that basis, her claim was remanded for further proceedings, where the employer will be required to show that Nichols' absence was willful.  The judges cited precedent to the effect that "tardiness or absences resulting from events beyond the employee's control or which are otherwise with good cause cannot be considered conduct in willful or wanton disregard of the employer's interests."

Judges expand "farming" to include growing worms--at least where employee rights are at issue

In Barks v. Silver Bait, LLC, the Sixth Circuit was required to decide whether the defendant was required to pay its workers overtime pay.  Silver Bait raises worms for fishing bait.  It argued that it is engaged in "agriculture" and therefore exempt from overtime rules.  The Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that worms aren't "traditional farm animals" but nevertheless found "little to distinguish Silver Bait from a traditional farm." 

In an era when employee rights are in retreat and employment regulations are regularly interpreted as employer corporations prefer, it is no surprise that the Court granted an expansive interpretation of the farming exemption, thereby expanding the number of employers who are not required to comply with the public policy favoring overtime pay.  There was a time when exemptions from public policy standards were strictly limited.

Binding arbitration award of unpaid sales commissions is upheld as employer's defense had "no substantive merit."

Paul Hartigan was employed by The Gold Refinery, LLC, to buy and sell gold.  He was compensated by the volume of gold he transacted at hotel events and house parties.  He claimed that he was under-paid and the parties agreed to take their dispute to arbitration.  After the arbitrator ruled that it owed Hartigan about $42,000.00 dollars, The Gold Refinery refused to pay up. Hartigan eventually sued and the defendant asked the court to set aside the arbitration.    The Court refused and the Court of Appeals affirmed that outcome, pointing out that "as long as the arbitrator is even arguably construing or applying the [arbitration] contract and actin within the scope of his authority, a court may not overturn the decision even if convinced that the arbitrator committed a serious error."

Woman can't pursue workers comp retaliation claim because employer shortened statute of limitations in hiring contract

Stephanie Hier attempted to sue Douglas J. Management and Gina Polce after she was hounded out of her job.  She claimed that the defendants purposely made her miserable in retaliation for filing a workers compensation claim.  The law of workers compensation makes it illegal to discriminate against someone for filing a workers compensation claim, and the statute would allow a victim of retaliation two years in which to file suit.  When Hier was hired, though, the employer imposed a handbook requirement that substituted a 180-day statute of limitations for the state statutory limitations on any legal claim she might have arising out of her employment.  In reliance on this handbook provision, the trial judge deemed himself obligated to dismiss Hier's claim.

On appeal the Court of Appeals pointed out that "under Michigan law private parties are permitted to contract for [a shorter] limitations period" than state statute would impose.  The Court also noted that when she was hired, Hier was given a copy of the handbook with the 182 day limitation period "agreement" and was therefore bound by it.  Since she didn't sue within the short period demanded by the employer's handbook, it didn't matter if the defendants illegally retaliated against her for collecting workers compensation benefits.

Court holds drug manufacturer accountable for failing to warn employees after government shutdown

The Worker Adjustment & Retraining Notification Act requires employers to "WARN" affected employees before a plant closing or mass layoff.  Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd.,  shut down its pharmaceutical manufacturing plant after the FDA seized its products.  It did not warn employees of the pending shut down.  The company argued that it was not obligated to provide a warning because its plant closing resulted from the FDA's seizure of its assets.

The Sixth Circuit rejected the company's reasoning.  The Court pointed out that for nearly a year prior to the FDA seizure, the company knew that an enforcement action was likely and would be difficult to avoid.  It had received several warning letters, was apprised of "significant objectionable conditions" during a plant inspection, and it had been warned by its consultants that a large-scale enforcement action was likely.  Therefore it was simply untrue that the company "did not 'reasonably foresee that the FDA would take the action that it did'."  Since it was reasonably foreseeable that the FDA action would occur, the company owed a duty under the act to warn its employees.

Court overturns summary disposition: employee's overtime claim is admissible proof.

Plaintiff Moran sued his employer Al Basit, LLC, alleging that he was entitled to uncompensated overtime.  Basit's lawyers persuaded the trial judge to summarily dismiss Moran's claim by arguing that his testimony was insufficient to counter the employer's records and testimony.  The Court of Appeals followed longstanding precedent, holding that this is clearly a credibility issue.  The judges ruled that the employee's testimony of having worked overtime is enough, by itself, to take the case before a jury.

Employee with cerebral palsy cannot pursue discrimination claim against "difficult" Wal-Mart manager because manager also abused others

In Watz v. Wal-Mart Stores, the plaintiff appealed the summary disposition of his discrimination claim.  He argued that he was a victim of disability harassment based on his cerebral palsy issues.  He claimed that his boss "refused to give him earned days off, prevented him from performing his job, and removed personnel from his department."  Wal Mart argued that the manager had been coached because of a "difficult management style" and that Watz couldn't prove that the abuse he suffered or the supervisor's conduct were "based on Watz's disability."  The trial judge rejected this basis for summary disposition of Watz's claim and Wal-Mart appealed.

The Court of Appeals disagreed and granted summary disposition to Wal-Mart.  The judges held that since the manager was "difficult" and other employees had complained, there was no evidence that Watz was targeted because of his disability.

Sixth Circuit upholds verdict of sexual harassment and retaliation

The EEOC sued New Breed Logistics on behalf of three women and a male co-worker who complained about a supervisor's inappropriate conduct toward the women workers.  After the women objected to the suggestive remarks and an incident of inappropriate touching, they were transferred and terminated, as was the male fork lift driver who supported their objections. 

The EEOC achieved a verdict of 1.5 million dollars and New Breed appealed, arguing that the evidence did not support the jurors' verdict and that the workers' activities were not "protected conduct."  The Sixth Circuit rejected the company's appeals.