Call for a professional consult today 734.281.2050

Employment Cases in the News

Employment Cases in the News

 

     The Statesman Journal (Oregon) recently reported that a government employee filed a claim for public policy discharge against her employer. In Michigan a discharge against public policy is an exception to the employment at will rule. Generally, an employee, not in a union, or not protected by a written contract has no protection against non-discriminatory discharges.

 

     However, in Michigan even such an at-will employee may not be terminated for the employer’s violation of a public policy. For an example, an employee may not be fired for refusing to violate the law. Such a case was Trombetta v. Detroit, T&IR, Co., 81 Mich App 489 (1979). In fact, it expressly affirmed the following principal:

 

“Such a cause of action has been found to be implied where the alleged reason for the discharge of the employee was failure or refusal to violate a law in the course of employment. Thus, in [citation omitted], the Court said that it would be impermissible to discharge an employee for refusing to falsify pollution control reports that were required to be filed with the state.”

***

“This court has recognized exceptions to the well established rule that at-will employment contracts are terminable at any time for any reason by either party. These exceptions were created to present individuals from contravening the public policy of this state. It is without question that the public policy of this state does not condone attempts to violate its duly enacted laws.”

 

     If you or a loved one have been fired for refusing to follow an illegal order at work, call Guy Vining.

 

Guy Vining has practiced law throughout the state of Michigan. His office is located in the downriver city of Taylor where he primarily serves the Metro-Detroit area. He has represented employers and employees in employment litigation in the trial court and the appellate courts in the following areas: whistleblower, breach of contract, public policy, discrimination, wage and hour violation, covenants not to compete, Americans with disabilities action and retaliation

Discrimination Cases in the News:

Discrimination Cases in the News:

 

     The Boston Herald on February 7, 2013 reported that a sex/gender discrimination case had been settled between a high level physician and the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. In the suit the female physician accused the medical center of gender discrimination and retaliation while she served as the chief of the anesthesia and critical care departments.

 

     In Michigan, discrimination in employment based upon gender, is expressly prohibited by the Elliot Larsen Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.2102. Since our employment is so important to our financial, physical and emotional well being you should be vigilant to protect yours. If you are experiencing difficulties at work it wise to seek legal advice before termination. If you or a loved one are experiencing employment problems, please feel free to contact Guy Vining.

 

     Guy Vining of the Vining Law Group has been privileged to have represented employees in such cases, as well as, employers. He has represented employers and employees in the trial and appellate courts in these areas. If you or a loved one feel as though you were discharged as a violation of public policy, feel free to call Guy Vining to day for a no-charge consultation.

 

Guy Vining has practiced law throughout the state of Michigan. His office is located in the downriver city of Taylor where he primarily serves the Metro-Detroit area. He has represented employers and employees in employment litigation in the trial court and the appellate courts in the following areas: whistleblower, breach of contract, public policy, discrimination, wage and hour violation, covenants not to compete, Americans with Disabilities action and retaliation

Discrimination Cases in the News: Whistleblowers

Discrimination Cases in the News:
Whistleblowers

Reuters recently reported that a former employee of Infosys filed a whistleblower case against it. The employee alleges that he was discharged after being harassed for reporting illegal activity at work. Specifically, the employee claimed concerns that he was discharged for reporting visa, tax, and billing fraud.

In a recent blog we addressed the Michigan Whisleblower statute. See: MCL 15.362. The statute makes it illegal to discipline or discriminate against or discharge an employee because the employee reports or is about to report to a public body a suspected violation of laws.

In Michigan there is another interesting employee cause of action called discharge in violation of public policy. Here’s what it is. In Michigan, as is most, if not all, other states, non-union employees are considered employees at will. That means that aside from statutory protections they are subjected to discharge even without good cause. However, even an at-will employee is protected if his or her discharge is predicated upon a violation of a public policy. For instance, it would be illegal to discharge an employee who refused to participate in creating false pollution control records, assisting in tax fraud and so on. In a future blog we will examine some interesting cases of employer liability for discharges in violation of public policy.

Guy Vining of the Vining Law Group has been privileged to have represented employees in such cases, as well as, employers. He was represented employers and employees in the trial and appellate courts in these areas. If you or a loved one feels as though you were discharged as a violation of public policy, feel free to call Guy Vining today for a no-charge consultation.

Guy Vining has practiced law throughout the state of Michigan. His office is located in the city of Taylor, Michigan, where he primarily serves the Metro-Detroit area. He has represented employers and employees in employment litigation in the trial court and the appellate courts in the following areas: whistleblower, breach of contract, public policy, discrimination, wage and hour violation, covenants not to compete, Americans with disabilities action and retaliation

Employment Cases in the News: Whistleblower Cases

Employment Cases in the News

Whistleblower Cases

The Chicago Tribute recently reported that Omnicare, Inc. had agreed to settle a whistleblower case. The case alleged that illegal payments were made to secure a long term contract with a pharmacy.

Guy Vining of the Vining Law Group, PLC, has been involved in numerous whistleblower cases. In Michigan the Whistleblower’s Protection Act, MCL 15.362 makes it illegal to discharge, threaten or otherwise discriminate against an employee because the employee reports or is about to report a violation or suspected violation of law to a public body. The statute provides that under appropriate circumstances the employee may be awarded damages including lost wages and benefits and attorney fees. The statute also empowers the judge to order reinstatement and restoration of seniority.

Guy Vining of the Vining Law Group has been privileged to have been involved for both employees and employers in such cases. He notes that it is critically important in prosecuting such cases to move very, very quickly. The case must be filed within a mere 90 days or it is barred, according to MCL 15.363. While Guy Vining believes this to be a  unreasonably brief period, it has been upheld by the Michigan Court of Appeals in Cavell v. Spengler, 114 Mich App 76 (1985). Therefore, if you suspect that you are being discriminated because of whistleblowing, contact a knowledgeable employment law attorney, immediately.

At the Vining Law Group, initial telephone conferences with whistleblowers are free of any charge. Call Guy Vining and he will be happy to help you analyze whether you have a viable case.

Guy Vining has practiced law throughout the state of Michigan. His office is located in the city of Taylor, Michigan, where he primarily serves the Metro-Detroit area. He has represented employers and employees in employment litigation in the trial court and the appellate courts in the following areas: whistleblower, breach of contract, public policy, discrimination, wage and hour violation, covenants not to compete, Americans with disabilities action and retaliation

Employment Law Cases: Discrimination Award

EMPLOYMENT LAW CASES

Discrimination Award

The Buffalo News has recently reported a $25,000,000 verdict in a racial harassment case in the state of New York. An African American was, according to the article, subjected to a culture of racism and discrimination, which management did not correct.

Guy Vining of the Vining Law Group has represented both employers and employees in racial discrimination cases. Race is a protected category in employment and under both State and Federal law in Michigan, and may not be used as a factor in effecting employment decisions. Moreover, race is one of the protected categories with respect to a basis of a harassment claim.

In this particular case, the employee alleged, and the jury determined, that the employer allowed a racially hostile environment to exist which included racial graffiti.

If you have questions about the discrimination laws in Michigan, please feel free to call Guy Vining for a no charge and confidential consultation.

Guy Vining has practiced law throughout the state of Michigan. His office is located in the downriver city of Taylor where he primarily serves the Metro-Detroit area. He has represented employers and employees in employment litigation in the trial court and the appellate courts in the following areas: whistleblower, breach of contract, public policy, discrimination, wage and hour violation, covenants not to compete, Americans with disabilities action and retaliation

Bankruptcy Cases in the News

Bankruptcy Cases in the News

The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an important and very interesting case recently in White v. Wyndham Vacation Ownership, Inc., 617 F3d. 472 (2010). This Court is the Court of Appeals for a great number of Midwestern Bankruptcy Courts, including the State of Michigan. The White case shows the importance of full disclosure of all assets in a consumer bankruptcy case. As we have discussed in the past blog postings, failure to make full disclosure can result in the dismissal of a case, attorney fees and in some instances, criminal charges.

The White case dealt with an interesting additional concept called “judicial estoppel.” Here is what happened. When Mrs. White signed and filed her bankruptcy petition she forgot to list as a possible asset of a lawsuit against her former employer, Wyndham. Apparently, the reason she had financial problems was because she had been discharged under circumstances which were suspicious of employment discrimination. A potential lawsuit is an asset.

Neither in her plan, nor in her schedules did she disclose to the Bankruptcy Court or her creditors that she had a significant cause of action for employment discrimination against her former employer, Wyndham. After her plan was approved and before she filed suit against Wyndham, she made some attempts to modify her bankruptcy schedules regarding the employment claim. Still, the U.S. District Court dismissed her lawsuit for discrimination, at her former employer’s request, based upon judicial estoppel and the 6th Circuit affirmed the dismissal. The 6th Circuit discussed in the opinion the doctrine of judicial estoppel:

    In the bankruptcy context, this court has previously noted that “judicial estoppel” bars a party from (1) asserting a position that is contrary to one that a party has asserted under oath in a prior proceeding, where (2) the prior court adopted the contrary position either as a preliminary matter or as part of a final disposition. [Citations omitted.] Id. At 476.

The White court noted that the doctrine was “utilized in order to preserve the integrity of the courts by preventing a party from abusing the judicial process through cynical gamesmanship.” Id. The Court further noted that it is the debtor’s absolute duty to disclose all assets to the Bankruptcy Court pursuant to various statutes in the Bankruptcy Code. Further, that based upon the purposes of bankruptcy:

  “[W]hen a bankruptcy court – which must protect the interest of all creditors – approves a payment from the bankruptcy estate on the basis of a party’s assertion of a given position that in our view is sufficient ‘judicial acceptance’ to estop the party from later advancing an inconsistent position.” [Citations omitted.]. Id. At 479.

The omission to list property or the true value assets is viewed as very significant when compared to the purpose of bankruptcy law. The White court specifically noted:

    “[T]he disclosure obligations of consumer debtors are at the very core of the bankruptcy process and meeting these obligations is part of the price that debtors pay in receiving the bankruptcy discharge. [Citations Omitted.] Viewed against the backdrop of the bankruptcy system and the ends it seeks to achieve, the importance of the disclosure duty can not be over emphasized. Id. At 480.

 
Dismissal of a significant claim was a drastic remedy. However, it was a remedy necessary to protect the bankruptcy court system. Had Mrs. White disclosed the Trustee might have brought the claim and any settlement or judgment could have been used to pay her creditors which would have got her out of her plan sooner, helping her and her creditors. When you and your bankruptcy lawyer file a petition for bankruptcy, yours assets (subject to proper exemptions) are no longer yours. The trustee has a right to bring those cases for the benefit of all administrative claimants and creditors. If all these folks get paid and there is money left over, the debtor will receive the balance.

The importance of the disclosure duty can not be over emphasized. Be sure to disclose all potential claims with your bankruptcy attorney. Otherwise, you will jeopardize your fresh start.

[Guy Vining, a bankruptcy attorney, in metro-Detroit, maintains his office in the city of Taylor, Michigan, where he serves the downriver communities of Monroe, South Rockwood, Gibraltar, Brownstown Township, Grosse Ile, Woodhaven, Trenton, Southgate, Riverview, Allen Park, Lincoln Park, Dearborn, Dearborn Heights, Westland, Wayne, and Ecorse. If you or a family member of friend would like a no-obligation no cost consultation/financial analysis, just call or E-mail Guy Vining of Vining Law Group, P.L.C to schedule a meeting.]

Employment Law in the News

Employment Law in the News


    The New York Times reported on March 21, 2012 that FedEx settled a case for $3,000,000.00 which alleged discrimination against applicants for employment by unlawful considerations of sex, race and gender being used in the hiring process.

In Michigan the legislature enacted the Elliott Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA) which makes it unlawful to discriminate in hiring, employment opportunities and/or termination based upon race, gender, age, weight, handicap and national origin. In Michigan an aggrieved employee may either sue under the ELCRA or the federal statute.

 

Also, the Sacramento Bee reported on March 26, 2012 that Aaron’s Rentals settled a sexual harassment lawsuit for $6,000,000.00. In Michigan an employee has a right to work in an environment that is free of sexual harassment. Where co-workers or management engage in sexual misconduct in un-welcomed and (usually) repeated sexual conduct, the adversely affected employee may have a cause of action for sexual harassment.

Guy Vining has practiced law throughout the state of Michigan. His office is in the city of Taylor, Michigan, where he primarily serves the Metro-Detroit area. He has represented employers and employees in employment litigation in the trial court and the appellate courts in the following areas: whistleblower, breach of contract, public policy, discrimination, wage and hour violation, covenants not to compete, Americans with disabilities action and retaliation

Employment Law: Non-Competition Agreements

Employment Law

 

Non-Competition Agreements

#1

Guy Vining of the Vining Law Group, PLC, has extensive experience in representing both employers and employees in drafting and litigating employment agreements and non-competition agreements. This experience dates back to 1998 in a Genesee County matter in which he successfully assisted an employee in avoiding an injunction which would have prohibited him from working in his chosen field/occupation for 2 years within 100 miles of his former position.

It is very interesting to note that it was not many years ago when such contracts were absolutely illegal! The courts refused to enforce them because they were considered against “public policy.” After all, such contracts were restrictive of trades, business and pursuit of free competition, foundations of the free enterprise system, and all things American.

 

That changed with the enactment of so-called Michigan Anti-Trust Reform Act (MARA). Although MARA has a dignified name the impact of it was to allow non-competition agreements to protect established business from their employees. As in all things, the outer limits have been tested and many times employers have pushed too far and tried to obtain concessions which are sometimes draconian and many times, in reality, unnecessary. The touch-stone therefore of MARA is that a non-competition agreement will be enforceable if reasonable, as to:

 

  1. Reference an employer’s reasonable competitive business interests;
  2. Reasonableness in duration, area and time; and,
  3. Reasonable in light of the circumstances under which it is made.

 

In particular, MCLA 445.774a provides as follows:

     Sec. 4a. (1) an employer may obtain from an employee an agreement or covenant which protects an employer’s reasonable competitive business interests and expressly prohibits an employee from engaging in employment or a line of business after termination for employment if the agreement or covenant is reasonable as to its duration, geographical area, and type of employment or line of business. To the extent any such agreement or covenant is found to be unreasonable in any respect, a court may limit the agreement to render it reasonable in light of the circumstances in which it was made and specifically enforce the agreement as limited.

 

As an employer, one should be reasonable in analyzing the need for protection, the actual job duties, whether there really is any confidential matter to be protected and the extent of the protection really required. With these considerations in mind your lawyer can tailor an agreement which will be enforceable and accomplish real protection. Over kill will likely antagonize a judge and any good to be gained may be lost from the over reaching.

If you are an employer seeking to draft or enforce a non-competition agreement VLG can help you. Conversely, if you are and employee and need to defend against a non-competition agreement VLG will be able to assist you, as well.

Guy Vining has practiced law throughout the state of Michigan. His office is located in the city of Taylor, Michigan, where he primarily serves the Metro-Detroit area. He has represented employers and employees in employment litigation in the trial court and the appellate courts in the following areas: whistleblower, breach of contract, public policy, discrimination, wage and hour violation, covenants not to compete, Americans with disabilities action and retaliation

Employment Law in the News

Employment Law in the News

From time to time Guy Vining of Vining Law Group, PLC, (VLG) has both prosecuted and defended employment law claims for individual clients and various corporate clients. Employment law cases generally are very difficult because they are factually intensive requiring the review of many documents and the interviewing or deposing of multiple witnesses. Unlike a traffic accident case where the question might simply be: red light or green light?; the employment case may span many years and many incidents or events.

A great deal of care should be employed in determining who to hire to represent you in your employment law case. These cases require meticulous preparation and tenacity in advancing or defending the case. Past trial experience, good abilities at legal research, writing and trial practices are a must. Moreover, your attorney needs to have life experience and understand how witnesses and jurors see things.

Guy Vining offers a free telephone consultation with respect to employment law cases. In the event that he can help you with a particular matter he will set up an appointment to discuss the matter in greater detail. Since Mr. Vining has been helping people with these kinds of matters since 1982 he will be able to appropriately analyze your case. Please call for free to discuss yours at 734.281.2050. He has experience in prosecuting and defending sexual harassment cases; whistleblower cases; terminations in violation of public policy cases; and, general discrimination matters, including retaliation cases.

Guy Vining has practiced law throughout the state of Michigan. His office is located in the city of Taylor, Michigan, where he primarily serves the Metro-Detroit area. He has represented employers and employees in employment litigation in the trial court and the appellate courts in the following areas: whistleblower, breach of contract, public policy, discrimination, wage and hour violation, covenants not to compete, Americans with disabilities action and retaliation

About the Vining Law Group, P.L.C.


Guy Vining is the principal of Vining Law Group, PLC, which is engaged in the general practice of law in the state of Michigan. The goal of this firm is to provide you with quality legal service at a reasonable price, including consulting, planning and litigation when required. As the owner, Guy Vining is able to give each matter entrusted to him the personal attention it deserves. Unlike larger firms that often assign your case to a junior associate, with whom you have never met, Mr. Vining is personally responsible for all aspects of your case. Mr. Vining will answer any of your questions at the initial office conference, and it is he who will perform all necessary legal research, prepare all pleadings, draft all documents, and make all court appearances on your behalf. As a personal service firm, Mr. Vining’s office will keep you informed of the progress of your case on a regular basis. You will receive copies of all correspondence generated in the course of Mr. Vining’s work on your legal matter. Telephone messages will be promptly returned.



Mr. Vining believes that the attorney-client relationship must be one of mutual trust, respect, realistic goal setting, good communication, and zealous representation within ethical confines. The goal is provide the highest quality service to you, your family and friends. This principle works as most of Mr. Vining’s work is received from other attorneys who respect his craft or from former satisfied clients.