Remember the movie Minority Report starring Tom Cruise? The premise of that movie was that in the future a special police task force (the “pre-crime division”) could identify wrongdoers who would go on to commit crimes and charge them before those unlawful acts actually occurred. A similar science fiction plot recently made its way to
Job Applicant’s Lawsuit under Fair Credit Reporting Act Barred by Statute of Limitations
Employers in Michigan and surrounding states conducting background reports on job applicants received a favorable decision from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals when it comes to limiting liability for claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The decision was issued on February 18, 2016, in the case Rocheleau v. Elder Living Constr., LLC
Religious Accommodations in the Workplace and Chinese New Year
Today marks the beginning of the Chinese New Year, which is also known as the Spring Festival. Traditionally and especially in China, this celebration last 15 days. This festival is also a celebration that involves both cultural and religious elements. For this reason, it is an excellent backdrop for discussing an employer’s obligations on
Does Your Company Need An Employee Probationary Period?
What do airplane life vests and probationary employment periods have in common? Both are ubiquitous in their respective context, both are often useless, and they may even do more harm than good.
Let me explain; the Wall Street Journal’s Scott McCartney recently wrote an article, “An Airplane Safety Measure That’s Not Much Use.
“Reasonable Accommodations” and “Undue Hardship” Defenses – It Comes Down to Money
A recent case involving the Americans with Disabilities Act offers employers an opportunity to consider two frequent issues under this statute: What is a reasonable accommodation and what must an employer show to establish an “undue hardship” defense to providing such an accommodation.
The case, Searls v. Johns Hopkins Hosp. (1-21-16), resulted in the
Key to Successfully Assessing ADA Accommodations Starts with Individualized Inquiry
An area under the Americans with Disabilities Act that can be problematic for employers and employees alike concerns conducting the individualized inquiry that is required to determine if an employee’s disability or another condition disqualifies the employee from a particular position. This issue recently played out in a federal district court case of (Siewertsen
The Price Tag for Settling Sex Discrimination Claims
A long-running sex discrimination lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) came to an end on November 25, 2015, when a Michigan federal district court approved a consent decree. Under that decree, Cintas Corporation agreed to pay $1.5 million in addition to a numerous other requirements for years to come. A copy of
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