TOV.WrongfulTermination&Discrimination

Court upholds summary disposition against woman alleging Whistleblower Protection Act violation, refusing to apply WPA to contract renewal

The Plaintiff was improperly suspended in October of 2013 by the MGH Family Health Center, after engaging in protected activity.  She was notified two weeks later that her annual contract would not be renewed on January 1 of 2014.  She filed a lawsuit on February 19 of that year, arguing that she was wrongfully terminated for engaging in protected activity.  The trial judge summarily dismissed her claim, holding that while the Whistleblower Protection Act applies to preclude termination of employment, it does not protect an employee's right to contract renewal.  The judge also held that her 90 day limit on filing suit commenced when she was notified of the suspension--and that no new violation or time limit resulted from the notice of non-renewal.  With that interpretation, her February lawsuit was not filed within the 90-day limit.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's holding and its analysis.  It held that Plaintiff Bradford's rights under the WPA were limited to acting within 90 days of her wrongful suspension, and that she had no WPA rights arising out of the non-renewal.

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 that two-year statute of limitations applies to FMLA claims of state employees; reinstatement rejected

In Crugher v. Prelesnik, the aggrieved Department of Corrections employee sought reinstatement of his previous position, but he did not act within two years of the alleged violation of the FMLA.  He pointed to a prior decision of the Supreme Court authorizing an aggrieved employee to file suit within three years.

The Court held that since the FMLA provided the plaintiff an express remedy for a violation, he was obligated to act within the time limits contained within the FMLA and that the prior damages claim holding suggesting otherwise did not apply to him.

Court rejects time-limit bar on ERISA appeal where MetLife failed to include notice of time limits in its notice of denial of benefits

The Sixth Circuit overturned a lower court decision upholding MetLife's rejection, as late, of the ERISA claim of a disabled worker in Moyer v. Metropolitan Life.  The appeals court pointed out that under the ERISA statutory scheme, the insurer that decides disability issues must inform the claimant of appellate deadlines in order to enforce them.

Since MetLife's denial letter didn't meet the express terms of section 1133 of the statute, it did not trigger the time limits for judicial review.

Michigan Court of Appeals holds employee's jury verdict should be overturned, based on employment manual statute of limitations

In Posselius v. Springer Pulishing Co., the plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging gender discrimination by her employer and retaliation.  The trial judge rejected the employer's claims for summary disposition, and the jury concluded that her claim was justified.  Nevertheless, the employer appealed the jury verdict, arguing that when Posselius acknowledged receipt of the company's Employment Handbook, she agreed to a six-month statute of limitations on filing any kind of suit against the employer. On that basis, the employer argued that since she allowed one year to pass between the improper behavior and filing suit, her lawsuit was brought too late and her valid claim was waived.

Sadly, two of the three appellate judges agreed with the employer and wiped out Posselius' jury verdict, including the dismissal of her claim of illegal retaliation. In Michigan, your employer can require you to waive substantial legal and civil rights in return for your "continued employment" -- just by making you sign acknowledging receipt of the handbook that recites your "agreement"--no matter how onerous or unreasonable.

Building Inspector's civil rights and whistleblower protection claims are examined

Vijay Parakh sued the Harrison Township in Macomb County, arguing that he was disciplined in retaliation for doing his job.  He first brought a grievance under the Collective Bargaining Agreement and won reinstatement of his position.  Because that did not provide complete relief, however, he filed the instant action in Circuit Court.  The Defendants secured summary disposition of his action by claiming he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and on other grounds.  He appealed.

The Court of Appeals panel pointed out that Parakh achieved all that he could under the CBA grievance procedure, and therefore a genuine issue of material fact remained with regard to whether the Plaintiff had exhausted his procedural rights.  The Court also pointed out that the Defendants had actually waived this defense by failing to raise it on a timely basis.

Sixth Circuit upholds new trial and verdict for woman subjected to hostile work environment

Court rejects FedEx's attempt to wipe out employee statutory rights by means of six-month statute of limitations

FedEx is notorious for its disrespect of workers' rights.  In the latest reported decision, the Sixth Circuit unanimously rejected FedEx's attempt to extinguish employee's Fair Labor Standards Act and Equal Pay Act rights by means of a clause in its hiring policies stipulating to a six-month statute of limitations.  Margaret Boaz sued her employer of nearly twenty years after she lost patience with its failure to pay her the same salary that it paid the man whose job duties she assumed.  She sought pay equal to the guy and also sought overtime which she claimed she was entitled to under the law.

FedEx argued that since she had worked for years without filing suit, her claim was "time-barred" by her "employment agreement" that required her to sue within six months of any wrong by FedEx.  The trial judge dismissed Boaz's complaint but the Sixth Circuit reversed.  It pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Court has firmly held that employees cannot "waive" federal statutory rights arising under these statutes in advance.  It pointed out that there was substantial foundation for these rulings and that recognizing FedEx's argument would "nullify" the acts by granting competitive advantage to employers who fail to comply or discriminate.

Court holds that City is immune from police officer's claim for constructive discharge

James Herbert was investigated several times by his own Department in a manner that he charged was a violation of public policy and retaliation against him for asserting his legal rights.  He claimed that the City's conduct made his employment untenable and constituted an illegal "constructive discharge."    The Court held that his claims of retaliation and violation of public policy were not contractual rights, but rather in the nature of "tort" rights, and therefore, whether accurate or not, they could not be enforced:  the City enjoyed governmental immunity from "tort" (or wrongful conduct) claims, and they were not an implied contractual right.

The Court also ruled that the office could not pursue a Whistleblower,  or a violation of the First Amendment "1983" claim.  The Court held that he was required to sue under the Whistleblower Protection Act within 90 days of the City's wrongful conduct--it wasn't enough to sue within 90 days of his constructive discharge. 

Long-time Wayne County employee loses civil rights and retaliation claim

Lance Simmons worked his way up to foreman in the County Department of Environment over almost thirty years.  In a reorganization, he and other employees were transferred to different facilities with a change in responsibilities.  Simmons objected and contacted the Michigan Department of Civil Rights, claiming age discrimination.  He argued that the County responded by emptying his desk and eliminating his work space.  He retired and filed a civil rights suit.

Unfortunately for Simmons, he waited too long after the events transpired to file a lawsuit.  If he had a meritorious claim, it was lost when he waited more than three years before filing suit.