The Berrien Springs school system sought to effect budget cuts by combining the jobs of Transportation Supervisor and Building and Grounds Supervisor. Sandra Swartz, an unmarried woman who was older than the Building Supervisor, held the former job at the time. She was initially made the assistant to the Building Supervisor, who was promoted to the new consolidated position, and after a year she was terminated. She filed suit alleging that she was a victim of discrimination. She pointed to remarks made by school administrators referring to the fact that she was eligible for retirement and that she was "not the head of a household" as evidence of age and gender discrimination.
Continue reading "Female administrator's discrimination claim is dismissed" »
In yet another acknowledgement of illegal behavior, Wal-Mart agreed to pay $40 million dollars and make management changes in response to allegations it was cheating its employees out of break-time and legal hours. The lawsuit alleged that Wal-Mart routinely denied employees meal breaks, manipulated time cards and refused to pay legally-mandated overtime. The class-action was filed in 2001; it was resolved 3 months after the retailer paid $3 million dollars to settle claims by state prosecutors alleging that it denied employees meal breaks. In December of 2008, Wal-Mart paid $640 million dollars to settle 63 other, similar wage-and-hour lawsuits around the nation.
Veronica Knight sued Ford Motor, alleging that as a black woman, she was discriminated against by her employer's work assignments. Knight argued that she was placed in a disfavored location as a result of race or gender dicrimination, or in retaliation for other complaints she had made. The Court found, however, that her complaints about being assigned to work in the "buffer work area" did not rise to the level of an "adverse employment action" as that term has been defined (usually meaning termination, demotion, reduction in pay, loss of a title, significant responsibilities, or material benefits). The Court also noted that Knight was the only black woman assigned to the "drop line," which strongly implied that the white males working in that area were not being assigned by means of illegal discrimination.
Kim Hosendove sued AT&T and several management employees, claiming racial discrimination. She provided the Court with evidence implying that she was treated differently than another employee, in terms of sales achievement and in response to their respective Performance Improvement Plans. The Appellate Court determined, however, that the other employee (obviously of another race) was not actually treated differently if her approved leave of absence was taken into account: the employees' monthly sales results were no longer similar when the LOA was included in the calculation. The Court also held that the Plaintiff did not provide adequate explanation of the other employee's performance under her "improvement plan" to allow the Court, or a rational factfinder, to conclude that the two employees received racially-motivated disparate treatment.
Diane Booker had worked for Henry Ford Health Systems for 25 years without being disciplined. Then, in 2005, she asked for time off for a medical appointment, and her supervisor initially granted it. The supervisor then changed her mind and refused the time off; while Booker was writing a letter complaining to the regional administrator, and after she complained to her union representative, the supervisor backed down and granted the day off. In the next 11 months, however, Booker was repeatedly written-up by the supervisor for tardiness, dress code violations, and other seemingly picayune "violations". Ultimately, she was suspended 5 days with a "progressive discipline-future termination" warning, and then terminated when she over-reacted to a scolding from the supervisor by "becoming loud and argumentative."
Continue reading "Court dismisses retaliatory discharge claim arising out of Disability Civil Rights Act" »
James Kendall was employed by Integrated Interiors, Inc., as a project manager. He believed that his company was regularly over-charging a client for its services, although he admitted that engineers employed by the client had approved the suspect over-charges. When he telephoned his supervisor to dispute the practice, he was terminated the following day. He filed suit alleging that his discharge was wrongful and constituted a violation of public policy.
Continue reading "Employee who "reasonably believes" he has been asked to act illegally is not protected from retaliation" »
Cheryl Debano-Griffin claimed whistleblower protection after she was fired for complaining about misuse of ambulance funds and inadequate ambulance service. She argued that under Michigan law, she was entitled to whistleblower protection, even though she could not identify the particular statute that her employer was allegedly violating. The Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that the statute providing protection for reporting a "suspected violation of law" would not apply to an employee's report of a violation of "suspected law." The case is Debano-Griffin v. Lake County and Lake County Board of Commissioners. We have sincere reservations about whether this decision reasonably fulfills the intent of the legislators who adopted the Whistleblower law: they didn't expect whistleblowing employees to be lawyers: they wanted to protect people who brought to the public's attention "suspected violations of the law." It seems like another example of semantics being elevated over good sense.
