Total Articles: 16
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 • 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.
Brody and Associates, LLC • January 04, 2013
Employees in Michigan can now opt out of joining and paying dues to unions without sacrificing their jobs.
Ogletree Deakins • December 14, 2012
As expected and amid demonstrations by thousands of union supporters, the Michigan House of Representatives passed SB 116 and HB 4003, and both bills were signed by Governor Rick Snyder. Now officially known as PA 348 of 2012 and PA 349 of 2012, respectively, these Acts provide both private and public sector employees with the right to either join a union and pay dues or refrain from doing so.
Franczek Radelet P.C • December 13, 2012
As we reported last week, in a surprising move last Thursday, the Michigan House and Senate both passed right-to-work legislation and sent the legislation to Michigan Governor Rick Snyder for his review and signature. Yesterday, Governor Snyder signed the bills shortly after receiving them, officially turning Michigan into a right-to-work state. The legislation will become effective 90 days after the end of the current legislation session, which will likely be in April.
Fisher Phillips • December 13, 2012
The Michigan legislature voted on December 11, 2012 to pass controversial right-to-work legislation affecting private and public sector employees throughout the historically union-friendly state. The legislation, which was signed almost immediately into law by Governor Rick Snyder, is a striking blow to Michigan’s organized labor movement, particularly in the automotive industry. The new laws are expected to take effect as soon as April 2013.
Goldberg Segalla LLP • December 13, 2012
Approximately 17.5 percent of Michigan workers are dues-paying union members, making it the fifth most unionized state in the nation. Michigan is one of the least likely candidates to adopt right-to-work legislation. However, on Tuesday, December 11, 2012, the Republican Governor of Michigan, Rick Snyder, signed Public Acts 348 and 349 of 2012 into law, making Michigan the twenty-forth right-to-work state. This is a stunning development in the home state of the United Auto Workers (UAW), considered to be a strong, pro-labor state.
Ogletree Deakins • December 11, 2012
On December 6, 2012, the Michigan Senate passed two bills (SB 116 and HB 4003) and the House passed one bill (HB 4052), making Michigan poised to become the 24th state with a right-to-work law. These bills would prohibit any requirement that employees be forced to join a union or pay an agency fee to a union as a term or condition of employment. SB 116 and HB 4052 are identical and apply to private sector employees. While HB 4003 applies to public sector employees, it creates an exemption for police and firefighters from the right-to-work provisions. Even though it was passed by the House, HB 4052 has not been reported to the Senate for procedural reasons. Nevertheless, the House is expected to pass SB 116 and HB 4003, as amended by the Senate, and Governor Rick Snyder has indicated that he will sign the bills if they reach his desk.
Franczek Radelet P.C • December 10, 2012
Yesterday, the Michigan House and Senate each passed right-to-work legislation amid tumultuous protest by union supporters. Governor Snyder (R) has said that he will sign the bills, which could occur as early as Tuesday. He cannot sign them earlier because of rules requiring a five-day delay between votes in the two chambers on the same legislation.
Ogletree Deakins • August 19, 2008
The production of otherwise-confidential documents in employment discrimination cases continues to be addressed by federal courts at an increasing rate. The issue typically pits state-law protection for “peer review” documents against federal anti-discrimination laws and regulations, and has generated growing controversy among health care providers who routinely rely on the state-law protection afforded to such information. A federal district court in Michigan recently addressed a plaintiff/physician’s discovery subpoena to a non-party hospital for peer review records of “similarly situated” physicians, and granted that hospital‘s motion to quash the subpoena. The court skirted the issue of state-law peer review protections, however, by simply finding that the documents requested were “not relevant” in the discovery phase of the case.