Michigan Electronic Pay Amendment Takes Effect
Effective December 21, 2010, the Michigan Wages and Fringe Benefits Act (MWFBA) was amended permitting Michigan employers to require their Michigan-based employees be paid via direct deposit or via a payroll debit card. Previously, employers had to issue paper checks if the employee did not give his or her “full, free and written” consent to direct deposit. Likewise, unless payroll debit cards were in place prior to January 1, 2005, “full, free and written” consent also was required for use of payroll debit cards. Currently, most other states do not allow employers to require the use of direct deposit or payroll debit cards.
Michigan - Third Party "Peer Review" Records Not Always Relevant In Employment Discrimination Claim.
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.
Change in Minimum Wage Rate Jeopardizes the Exempt Status of Thousands of Michigan Employees.
New legislation increasing Michigan's minimum wage rate could result in hundreds of thousands of employees suddenly becoming eligible for overtime pay. The increase in Michigan's minimum wage occurred through the passage of Senate Bill 318, enacted as Michigan Compiled Laws section 408.384. The bill increases the state's minimum wage rate to $6.95 per hour effective October 1, 2006, $7.15 per hour effective July 1, 2007, and $7.40 per hour effective July 1, 2008.
Michigan Increases Minimum Wage Effective October 1, 2006.
On March 28, 2006 Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm signed legislation increasing the state's minimum wage – currently $5.15 – to $7.40 in three increments. The first hike, effective October 1, 2006, will raise the minimum wage to $6.95. On July 1, 2007, the minimum wage will be increased to $7.15, and raised again to $7.40 on July 1, 2008.
Deadline To Protect Confidentiality Of SSN Numbers Is Fast Approaching (pdf).
This is a reminder that companies with operations or substantial business in the
State of Michigan must implement a policy to protect the confidentiality of Social Security
numbers (SSN) by January 1, 2006.
Michigan Establishes Minimum Privacy Protections For Social Security Numbers.
In 2005, Michigan joined a growing number of states (Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida and Georgia, among others) that have enacted specific legislation protecting individual Social Security numbers. The Social Security Number Privacy Act prohibits the intentional disclosure of more than four sequential digits of an employee's SSN. The Act makes it a misdemeanor – punishable by up to 93 days in prison and a fine of $1000 – to knowingly violate any provision. Aggrieved employees may also bring a civil suit to recover their actual damages or $1,000 (whichever is greater) plus attorneys' fees. Many of the Act's provisions became effective immediately upon passage on March 1, 2005. Other provisions will become effective on January 1, 2006
Michigan Supreme Court Closes the "Continuing Violation" Loophole for Discrimination Claims.
In a clear victory for employers, the Michigan Supreme Court has rejected a long-standing theory of liability that, until now, individuals have used to resurrect stale discrimination claims that fell outside of state law limits on when lawsuits could be filed. In a split opinion, the court ruled that untimely claims of discrimination would no longer be permitted under the theory of a "continuing violation" of the state Civil Rights Act, which has a three-year statute of limitations.
State Laws Restrict the Use of Social Security Numbers
In response to the ever-increasing number of incidents of identity theft, Michigan has joined a handful of states that have enacted laws restricting the use of social security numbers. See MCLA § 445.83. Some provisions of the law, such as the requirement that social security numbers not be displayed publicly and not appear on the outside of packages mailed to individuals, were effective March 1, 2005. Other requirements, such as the prohibition of the use of a social security number on any identification badge or card, membership card, or permit or license and the use of social security numbers as the primary account number for an individual, are not effective until January 1, 2006. Other provisions of the law include a prohibition on including a social security number in any document or information mailed to an individual, subject to certain exceptions.
Michigan Becomes the First State in the Nation to Open the Door to Potential Employer Liability for Workplace Identify Theft.
In early 2005, Michigan became the first state in the nation to enact legislation requiring that every employer maintain a policy for safeguarding employee social security numbers. During the same time frame, the Michigan Court of Appeals became the first appellate court to allow the victims of identity theft to recover damages (totaling $275,000) from an organization that failed to adequately safeguard personal information that was subsequently used for identity theft. These national precedents expose Michigan employers to liability for failing to safeguard employee personal information, and open the door to employer liability for workplace identity theft in other jurisdictions that likely will follow Michigan’s example.
Am I on the Hook? Individual Liability for Supervisors in Michigan.
Are supervisors liable, in their individual capacity, for violation of an employee's civil rights? Unfortunately for employers and supervisors, there is no clear answer at present.
