Employers routinely require employees to sign a non-compete agreement, in order to prevent them from taking customers, business opportunities, and confidential information to a competitor. "Continued at-will employment" was historically deemed adequate consideration for such agreements in Michigan. An employer could discharge an employee for any reason at any time and, subject to considerations of fairness or equity, still move to enforce that employee's non-compete agreement. No minimum period of employment or other consideration was necessary. This rule was helpful for employers, but sometimes onerous for employees. This long-standing rule may now be in flux.
Hertz Schram is pleased to announce that Gary Remer, one of Michigan's top franchise attorneys, joined the firm to lead our Franchise and Employee Benefit Plan practices. Gary will continue to advise business owners, including franchisors and franchisees, on business entity formation and maintenance, commercial contracts, finance, regulatory compliance and retirement plans.
On June 26, 2015, the United States Supreme Court issued its 5-4 decision in Obergefell et al. V. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health, et al. pertaining to 14 same sex couples and two male same sex partners, now deceased, who challenged the constitutionality of the state laws of, Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee. The Supreme Court held that the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex. The Court also held that the 14th Amendment requires a State to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when that marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state.
A CAUTIONARY TALE: AN EMPLOYEE WHO PRESENTS NO OTHER EVIDENCE OTHER THAN HIS TESTIMONY CONTRADICTING THE EMPLOYER'S TIMESHEETS AND PAY STUBS CREATES A GENUINE ISSUE OF FACT ALLOWING THE OVERTIME CLAIM TO PROCEED TO A JURY
In a case entitled EEOC v New Breed Logistics, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of the defendant-employer's motions for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial following the jury's determination that New Breed's supervisor engaged in sexual harassment and retaliation under Title VII. During the trial, plaintiff presented evidence, that the appeals court deemed sufficient, showing New Breed's supervisors were cognizant of the sexual harassment when they terminated each employee, and that the employees' "protected activity" constituted "the but-for cause of the adverse employment actions taken against any claimant." Further, New Breed was not entitled to a new trial on the sexual harassment issue because the supervisor's harassment caused a "tangible employment action for which New Breed should be vicariously liable[.]"
An Employer's Refusal to Accommodate an Employee's Request to Telecommute Is Not A Violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act Where Regular and Predictable On-Site Attendance Is An Essential Job Function
There is a fine line that both employers and their employees walk each day to create a balanced and functional workplace. Each side has responsibilities to uphold and expectations to maintain. Employees expect to be treated with respect and compensated for a job well-done. Employers also have expectations for their employees to meet, such as maintaining a professional work environment and performing according to the company's standards and needs.
One Texas hospital has recently been criticized in the media for its hiring policy. Any time that a business, regardless of size, institutes a policy regarding employees, such as a hiring policy, there is a potential for a dispute with existing or potential employees, this can leads to employment litigation and a need for a commercial litigation lawyer .