Companies commonly offer salary advances or financially invest in an employee’s education, training, or certification. But a recent decision by the Michigan Court of Appeals is a good reminder of how missteps in accurately documenting such advances or investments can be costly. In this case, an employer was out over $200,000 after investing in education
Employer’s Investigation of Misconduct Called Into Question Allowing FMLA Claims to Go to Trial
An employer’s defense to a lawsuit brought under the Family Medical and Leave Act (FMLA) was derailed after a judge agreed there was enough evidence for a jury to find that the employer investigated an employee’s work performance to find a “legitimate” reason to fire him after that employee requested leave.
The case, Lankford v.
Does Ruling in Favor of Wrongful Discharge in Violation of Public Policy Claim Have Broader Implications for Employers
The Michigan Supreme Court ruled for a Saginaw nurse who filed a wrongful discharge claim alleging he was fired in violation of public policy. As we previously noted, this case raised a question of whether Michigan’s Whistleblowers’ Protection Act was the former employee’s exclusive remedy.
In sum, Mr. Landin was terminated from his job
A $1.2 Million Verdict Depends Upon Balancing Michigan’s Whistleblower Protection Act against Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy
On November 4, 2015, the Michigan Supreme Court heard oral argument in a wrongful discharge in violation of public policy claim under Michigan law. The central issue to be decided is whether that claim could be asserted or – as the employer contends – was the discharged employee limited exclusively to bringing a claim under
Identifying Your Company’s Next HR Challenge: Sexual Orientation Discrimination
Earlier this year we wrote about the EEOC’s decision that sexual orientation discrimination is a form of sex discrimination, which is made unlawful under Title VII. See Sexual Orientation Discrimination is Unlawful under Federal Law … For Now?
On 10/29/2015, this issue was before a district court judge who agreed with the agency’s opinion, but
Employer has Injunction Reversed after Losing Battle of What Law Applies in Non-compete Lawsuit
I recently ran across a great article about noncompete agreements, which touch upon two important issues that threaten the success of every non-compete lawsuit: the role choice of law provisions play in noncompete litigation and damages at the preliminary injunction stage of a non-compete lawsuit.
As to the article by Paul O. Lopez, Can Noncompete
Rethinking Employee Performance Reviews
Does your company rely on performance reviews for evaluating and managing employees? Probably; performance reviews are a staple for human resource professionals when it comes to evaluating employee performance. Neuroscience, however, is calling into question the value of such reviews.
The Science Undermining the Value of Performance Reviews
Specifically, in “Risks of Reviews,“
Differences in State Law Create Hurdles for Enforcing Non-Compete Restrictions
A Court ruled that a company didn’t show a substantial likelihood that it would succeed in enforcing noncompetition restrictions against four former employees. This failure, however, is an important reminder for companies with multi-state operations or employees who may live in a state where non-compete restrictions are not favored or otherwise enforceable.
Turning to the
Termination of Doctor’s Contract During Military Deployment Did not Violate USERRA
Employers won a victory at the expense of a surgeon deployed to Iraq for military service in a lawsuit concerning re-employment rights under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). Slusher v. Shelbyville Hosp. Corp., (10/26/15).
In January 2011, Richard Slusher, an orthopedic surgeon, signed a one-year contract with Shelbyville Hospital Corporation,
When Stealing Trade Secrets Don’t Use any Computer Devices – It Makes an Attorney’s Job Easier
Aliphcom, Inc. d/b/a Jawbone won an early legal battle in a lawsuit filed against five of its former employees and its rival Fitbit, Inc.
Specifically, in a preliminary injunction hearing held on 10/20/2015, the individual defendant were ordered by a federal judge to return any confidential information they took and to allow their computers and