It is no understatement that celebrity chef Paula Dean has seen her world fall apart after it was reported that she had used the “N-word.”
Her use of this racial slur came out when she testified (PDF) in an employment discrimination lawsuit filed by a former employee against Ms. Dean, her brother Bubba Hiers, and
[T]he Lie, as a recreation, a solace, a refuge in time of need … man’s best and surest friend, is immortal, and cannot perish from the earth … My complaint simply concerns the decay of the art of lying.
From the Art of Lying by Mark Twain.
Mr. Twain’s concern about the decay of
It may sound odd for a noncompete attorney to say this, but when it comes to enforcing a non-compete restriction, the applicable law is often less important than the context in which the noncompete restriction arises.
To better understand this point, consider that noncompete restrictions, sometimes referred to as covenants not to compete, often arise
Back on March 21, 2013, this blog critically discussed a Michigan Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA) claim, Furhr v Trinity Health Corp., (2013), where the Court of Appeals reversed a jury verdict in favor of a former employee who had filed a lawsuit against her employer. Procedurally, reversing a jury verdict is not normally expected.
In a rare decision favorable to Michigan whistlblower plaintiffs, the Court of Appeals reversed a trial court’s decision to dismiss a whistleblower case against an employer. But the real lesson that employers and their HR professionals should take from the decision is that timely decision making in the termination process is critical, as well
A proposed amendment to Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act was introduced this week. The primary sponsor for this bill is State Representative Gretchen Driskell. This amendment is part of a package of bills intended to promote pay equity in Michigan. For more information about the other bills in this package follow this link.
As
One of the most frustrating aspects for any employer defending a claim of employment discrimination is that you’re stuck with the cards dealt to you. That is to say, you employers and their lawyers can’t pick the facts. And sometimes no matter what legal defenses you think your company has when it comes to defending
The recent termination of an employee (Adria Richards) after she tweeted her displeasure at off-color jokes told by certain fellow attendees at an industry conference she attended on behalf of her employer has resulted in a lot of good discussion (see here and here for examples) about the increasing intertwining of social media and employment legal
For many, sharing on Facebook, Twitter, Linked In, and other social media-related websites is a daily routine. But what happens to that routine when a person becomes involved in litigation? This is a question that almost always has to be answered in the context of employment discrimination lawsuits.
The answer to this question, however
In Hays v Lutheran Social Services of Michigan, the Michigan Court of Appeals recently reversed a jury verdict in favor of a former employee who had filed a lawsuit against her employer based on Michigan’s Whistleblower Protection Act (the “WPA”).
The basis for the opinion is important for both Michigan employers and employees with