Total Articles: 10
Ogletree Deakins • December 19, 2017
Effective January 1, 2018, the Michigan minimum wage will increase to $9.25 an hour. This is the last of the scheduled increases under Public Act 138 of 2014. Beginning in January of 2019, annual adjustments to the minimum wage will be made based on the unemployment rate and consumer price index, and any future increases cannot exceed three-and-one-half percent.
Littler Mendelson, P.C. • April 17, 2017
The Michigan Department of Civil Rights has updated a poster that employers must post at their Michigan work sites. The poster—Michigan Law Prohibits Discrimination—is a required posting under the Michigan Elliott Larsen Civil Rights Act and the Michigan Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act (MPWDA). The new poster was recently released and has reinserted language addressing accommodation under the MPWDA that had been eliminated in 2011. The new poster now states that “Persons with disabilities needing accommodation for employment must notify their employers in writing within 182 days.”
Ogletree Deakins • August 23, 2016
A business dispute in Michigan may provide insight into the consideration required to support a noncompete contract restricting future employment. Innovation Ventures, LLC v. Liquid Manufacturing, LLC, No. 150591, Michigan Supreme Court (July 24, 2016).
Ogletree Deakins • June 17, 2016
The requirements and processes applicable to employers handling garnishments are primarily governed by state laws. Therefore, in addition to the federal Consumer Credit Protection Act (CCPA), multistate employers need to be aware of the garnishment requirements in all states. As if these issues are not enough, complicating it further for employer compliance initiatives is the fact that state legislatures frequently tweak garnishment requirements and processes. During the past several months, six states have made noteworthy changes to their garnishment laws and two states made major changes. This two part-series covers the changes to the garnishment laws in Michigan, Georgia, Tennessee, California, South Dakota, and West Virginia.
Littler Mendelson, P.C. • March 28, 2016
On March 22, 2016, Michigan joined Wisconsin, Texas, Louisiana, and Tennessee by amending its Franchise Investment Law to make it clear that unless otherwise specifically provided for in the franchise agreement, a franchisee is considered the sole employer of workers to whom it pays wages or provides a benefit plan.1 This amendment – one of six bills signed into law by Governor Rick Snyder since December 2015 – is designed to protect franchisors in the wake of the uncertainty created by the National Labor Relations Board’s ruling in Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc.2 pertaining to when a company may be considered a joint employer.
Effective immediately, municipalities in Michigan are prohibited from regulating the terms and conditions of employment for private employers. The state's Local Government Labor Regulatory Limitation Act specifically declares that regulation of the employment relationship between a private employer and its employees is a state matter and, consequently, outside the express or implied authority of local government bodies. Therefore, any local wage theft, "ban the box" or paid sick leave protections will be preempted under the new state law.
Ogletree Deakins • April 15, 2015
A wage garnishment is a court order that assists plaintiffs with the collection of judgments. Such an order requires an entity to withhold money (i.e., wages) owed to a judgment debtor and divert it to a judgment creditor in order to satisfy the judgment debt. An order for a wage garnishment is startlingly complex to administer and very risky for employers. For instance, if an employer does not timely answer a Michigan garnishment within 14 days, or fails to do any other act required by the court, it is subject to a judgment against it for the full amount of the employee’s debt.
Ogletree Deakins • November 11, 2014
On October 23, 2014, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that employees discharged for having failed a drug test because of their medical marijuana use are not disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits.
Ogletree Deakins • March 05, 2014
An order for a wage garnishment is surprisingly complex to administer and very risky for employers. For instance, if an employer does not answer a garnishment within 14 days or do any other act required by the court, it is subject to a judgment against it for the full amount of the employee’s debt. The employee’s debt may be small, in the range of several hundred or several thousand dollars. But they are not all small—in one case a court entered a default judgment against an employer for being late on a disclosure in the amount of $596,000.
Ogletree Deakins • January 07, 2013
The apparent practice by employers of requesting access to employees’ and applicants’ social media accounts, such as Facebook and Twitter, has led the state of Michigan to pass the Internet Privacy Protection Act (PA 478 of 2012)(IPPA). The Act was signed by Governor Rick Snyder on December 27, 2012, as part of a flurry of late session legislative activity and given immediate effect.