The Whistleblowers' Protection Act does not excuse failure to timely respond to an emergency call to deliver food to a stripper regardless of what report of a violation of law you have made.
It is my opinion that the Michigan Court of Appeals hates the Whistleblowers Protection Act. The court continues to provide me with material to support my thesis. However, in this particular case - they got it right. I humbly posit that this case should never have been filed. Yet, the Michigan COA still manages to get it wrong.
The Americans with Disabilities Act, Reasonable Accommodation, and Essential Functions. Why Employer Should Think Before Denying. Rorrer v. City of Stow
Recently there have been several cases from the Sixth Circuit discussing the ideas and principles involved in the legal analysis for essential functions and reasonable accommodations under the ADA. Kieth, Henschel, and now Rorrer all deal with essentially the same analysis. In all three, the District Court had dismissed the ADA claim concluding that the employee could not perform an essential function. Since, the employee could not perform the essential function, no reasonable accommodation was possible. This analysis is flawed. Rorrer again points out the common misapplications of the ADA.
Medical Marihuana or even Medical Marijuana is still legal if used in accordance with the MMMA and there is not much a city can do about it. Or How I learned to stop worrying and love federalism.
In 2008, the voters of the State of Michigan passed the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, MMMA. It provides certain qualified individuals with protections under state law or immunity from punishment. On February 6, 2014, a unanimous Michigan Supreme Court affirmed those protections from local ordinance. For a case about Marijuana, the case is really about federalism and the separation of powers between state and local governments in Michigan. The City of Wyoming tried to prevent individuals from using medical marijuana in its city.
On January 2, 2014, in the unpublished case of Bolish v Miller Park Townhomes LLC, the Michigan Court of Appeals continued it assault on the WPA. The facts as recited by the Court are not strong, and based on them the case may have justified summary judgment. (This comes with an asterisk, because a Jury found sufficient evidence to return a verdict for the Plaintiff in the amount of $68,000). The Court was wrong and reversed a jury’s decision in the process. The Court spends unnecessary time on at-will employment and the Whitman case. The Court’s fallacious analysis continues by paying perfunctory attention to the timing of the adverse employment action and improperly viewing circumstantial evidence.
If you put your child’s name on the deed, your child owns part of the house. So, they can force a sale. If they get divorced, your house is now part of the divorce. If they file Bankruptcy they can only protect one house, so that could be problematic.
(Image from http://www.sxc.hu/photo/1435494)
While it is already January 13, I felt it necessary to write a little something about the employment cases that came out in 2013. As it has been written about in many places (see here, here, and here), it is not easy for employees to make successful cases against their employers. (I am sure that management-side attorney will disagree) Why is it more difficult for Plaintiff's to be successful? Partial because of the dreadful muddle as Judge Posner put it in a 2012 case of Cook v. IPC International Co. (See earlier post). The law has become full of additional hurdle after additional hurdle for employees. With all of that in mind, I thought I would put together a couple of my favorite cases from 2013. To make the list a case has to be full of good analysis and application of the employment law. I am looking for cases that can be analogized in the future to help plaintiffs bringing meaningful cases to be successful. This list is not exhaustive, I am sure there are cases that I missed that are good. Feel free to point them out. I would love to have a discussion about this.
For long-time readers of the blog, you have noticed that I have expanded the areas that are covered with this blog. One of the new areas is language, legal usage, or Plain English. I find words to be fascinating.
Gardner borrows from David Foster Wallace and uses the term snoot for grammar snobs, grammar nazi, or gam mar nerd. (See Garner's interview with the magazine Vice) While I aspire to be a snoot, I am sure I fall quite short.
All that said, I recently came across a legal triplet or synonym string that was not covered in the 2nd Ed. of "A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage" that sits next to my desk. I researched to see if the words were redundant or if there was perhaps a difference in the terms. Here is what I found.
The Elder Law Professor's Blog brought my attention to a document by the Michigan Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program that provides answers to frequently asked questions about medical powers of attorney, living wills, and do not resuscitate orders. It also provides fill-in the blank versions of the documents. The document can be found here. The FAQ's were very helpful.
A Blog of Michigan law and other legal miscellany