Michigan Labor & Employment Law Blog

On July 31, 2024, the Michigan Supreme Court issued the highly anticipated ruling concerning Michigan’s minimum wage and mandatory sick leave. Currently, Michigan’s minimum wage is set forth in the Improved Workforce Opportunity Wage Act (IWOWA) and minimum required sick leave is set forth in the Paid Medical Leave Act (PMLA) (the amended version of initial Earned Sick Time Act (ESTA).

In a 3-2 vote along party lines on April 23, 2024, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) approved and issued a final rule to take effect in 120 days prohibiting most noncompete agreements between employers and workers. The Commission says the new regulations will ensure that American workers have the freedom to pursue a new job, start a new business or introduce a new product or service to the market.

See the full, original article here: FTC Prohibits Most Noncompete Agreements | U.S. Workers | Legal Challenges Expected: Foster Swift

On January 5, 2023, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a proposed new regulation that would broadly prohibit employers from using or enforcing noncompete agreements with employees, former employees, contractors, or other workers.

A non-competition agreement – also known as a non-compete agreement or non-compete clause – is a stipulation often found in employee contracts that prohibits an employee from engaging in the same type of business with another employer if they leave their current job.

These clauses have been in employers’ toolboxes for decades, largely to protect proprietary information and trade secrets from competition. However in the past few years, non-competes have come under fire from the Biden Administration.

Knowing this, our team has put together some key points on non-competes, laws that govern them, and changes that we’re seeing in the Biden Administration.

On July 9, 2021, President Biden issued his Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy. The executive order contains over 70 initiatives directed at more than a dozen federal agencies, including one that “encouraged” the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) to use its rulemaking ability “to curtail the unfair use of non-compete clauses and other clauses or agreements that may unfairly limit worker mobility.”

On March 9, 2021, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, known as the PRO Act, with a largely party line vote of 225-206.

The bill’s passage in the U.S. House is a victory for labor unions, as it includes sweeping changes to federal labor laws that would significantly impact employers and empower unions. The legislation now moves to the U.S. Senate, where stiffer opposition to passage is expected.

Can an employee in Michigan secretly record a conversation they are involved in without consent of other people involved in the conversation? It has long been assumed, based on precedent from the Michigan Court of Appeals, that such recordings are legal, and therefore that Michigan is a “one party consent” state. However, that issue may soon be settled in a more definitive fashion by the Michigan Supreme Court.

See more from the June 2020 issue of Labor & Employment Law News.

Conducting a workplace investigation is a challenging and risk-filled endeavor for all employers. It is imperative that businesses move quickly and decisively to investigate allegations of wrongdoing because public and private companies are coming under greater scrutiny from the federal, state, and local governments and regulatory bodies, and are increasingly in the crosshairs of plaintiffs’ attorneys bringing lawsuits and calling their practices into question.

Part One of this series dealt with the scenarios of what warrants an investigation and why employers should conduct workplace investigations. Part Two discusses what to do when a complaint has been filed and what actions should be taken following an investigation.

See more from the June 2020 issue of Labor & Employment Law News.

In the past, background checks on prospective employees were done as a matter of course by employers. The only real risk employers faced was missing a red flag in a candidate’s background, resulting in a poor hiring decision. However, in the wake of new legislation, employers must take great care to avoid liability while filtering out information about their job candidates during the hiring process. In Part One of this series, we discussed the ins and outs of conducting both Criminal and Fair Credit Reporting Background Checks. This article discusses social media background checks, medical examinations/drug testing and background check best practices.

Conducting a workplace investigation is a challenging and risk-filled endeavor for Michigan employers. Done right, an investigation can unearth important information that can help bring an end to deleterious behavior—or affirm that nothing unlawful or improper is or was taking place. In either case, an investigation can restore trust and credibility internally and externally. Done poorly, an investigation erodes trust and can result in legal and financial consequences, loss of employee morale, and reputational damage.

In the past, background checks on prospective employees were done as a matter of course by employers. The only real risk employers faced was missing a red flag in a candidate’s background, resulting in a poor hiring decision.

In today’s tight job market, businesses must recruit aggressively to attract talent. However, without a clear and compliant hiring process in place, and well-trained employees to implement the process, an employer’s hiring practices can open it up to significant liability.

Disciplining, terminating or laying off employees can be a traumatic experience. It is traumatic for the employee because it involves criticism for not performing acceptably and/or causing potential financial burdens because the paycheck has stopped.

Employers have known for a long time the legal implications of harassment in the workplace. And, while bullying gets considerable attention in schools, it is only now starting to gain attention in the workplace. But employers must be aware that ignoring bullying in the workplace may also expose them to significant legal liability.

Due to increased scrutiny from state and federal government agencies and high profile cases involving companies such as Uber, UPS and FedEx Ground, businesses are becoming increasingly concerned over proper classification of workers.

For the past eight years, the U.S. Department of Labor (the "DOL") followed a strict six-part test to determine whether a for-profit employer could use interns without compensating them for the services they provided.

In an effort  to guard against workplace meetings or discussions being recorded and uploaded to social media for all to hear, and to protect employees against surreptitious recording of their conversations, many employers have implemented "no recording" policies. One such employer was Whole Foods Markets, which had two no-recording policies in place.

A Federal court in Texas issued a temporary injunction yesterday against the new Department of Labor (“DOL”) overtime regulations that were set to go into effect December 1st.

The injunction follows court arguments heard on November 16th in a lawsuit brought by 21 states alleging the new DOL’s rules exceeds the DOL’s authority and violated administrative law requirements. The new regulations propose to raise the salary threshold for exempt employees from $23,660 to $47,476 and provide for an automatic increase to the threshold every three years.