Category Archives: 6th Circuit Court of Appeals

Paraphrasing Mark Twain: “It is Better to Keep Your Mouth Closed . . . .”

18 Sunday Nov 2018

Posted by in 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, Appellate Law, Brief Writing, Contract Law, Legal Argument, Legal Writing

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Don’t Mock A Legal Argument If You’re Completely Wrong, by Joe Patrice, Above the Law Blog

https://abovethelaw.com/2013/09/dont-make-fun-of-a-legal-argument-if-youre-completely-wrong/

Mark Twain said, “It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.” It is always awkward when the court benchslaps your legal argument.

There are useful lessons here for all of us, not just State Farm. First, when your client is relying on the terms of a contract, note its details before you say something you will wish you hadn’t. Second, be careful with hyperbole and sarcasm when writing a brief for an appellate court.

I agree with Mr. Patrice. The opening paragraph of the Sixth Circuit Court’s opinion is worth repeating. -CCE

There are good reasons not to call an opponent’s argument ‘ridiculous,’ which is what State Farm calls Barbara Bennett’s principal argument here. The reasons include civility; the near-certainty that overstatement will only push the reader away (especially when, as here, the hyperbole begins on page one of the brief); and that, even where the record supports an extreme modifier, ‘the better practice is usually to lay out the facts and let the court reach its own conclusions.’ But here the biggest reason is more simple: the argument that State Farm derides as ridiculous is instead correct.

Sixth Circuit Takes a Look at Employee’s Age, Race, and Sex Discrimination Claim.

27 Saturday Feb 2016

Posted by in 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, Employment Law, Gender Discrimination, Race Discrimination, Wrongful Termination

≈ Comments Off on Sixth Circuit Takes a Look at Employee’s Age, Race, and Sex Discrimination Claim.

Tags

, , , ,

Dis-Orderly Conduct: Hospital Security Guard Fired After Incident With Psychiatric Patient Cannot Advance Discrimination Claims, by Alexis B. Kasacavage, Bingham Greenebaum Doll, LLP Blog  

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=729cc33f-832f-49e3-97f6-7a1c3c8f1997

Interesting analysis on how the courts came to the same conclusion but for different reasons. -CCE

 In Loyd v. Saint Joseph Mercy Oakland, et al., the Sixth Circuit recently upheld a Michigan district court’s decision to dismiss a 52-year-old African-American female security guard’s age, race and sex discrimination claims arising from her discharge following an incident with a combative psychiatric patient at the hospital where she worked.

Continue reading →

An Employee Manual Predicament.

07 Thursday May 2015

Posted by in 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, Employee Manuals, Employment Law, FMLA Leave, Health Care Benefits

≈ Comments Off on An Employee Manual Predicament.

Tags

, , , ,

Flag on the Play: Court Takes Away Employer’s Victory Because of Mistake in the Employee Manual, by Jason Shinn, Michigan Employment Law Advisor [originally published February 5, 2015]

http://tinyurl.com/pkld6yo

This past week saw the Seattle Seahawks skillfully avoid winning back-to-back Super Bowls because of (arguably) bad decision-making (all the Seahawks had to do was move the ball 36 inches into the end-zone – the only other decision worse than passing in that situation was having Katy Perry perform at half-time, but I digress).

An employer found itself in a similar situation and after further review its victory in an employment-related discrimination claim was reversed because of poor decision-making in relation to its employee manual.

Specifically, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (the federal circuit that covers Michigan employers) reversed a trial decision in favor of an employer in Tilley v. Kalamazoo Cnty. Rd.Comm’n (1/26/2015). The employer was sued for claims under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) (29 USC § 2601 et seq.) and under Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act.

The FMLA and Eligibility

For background purposes, the FMLA provides employees ‘a total of 12 workweeks of leave during any 12-month period for . . . a serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the functions of the position of such employee.’ 29 U.S.C. § 2612(a)(1)(D). Importantly, these FMLA benefits are not available to all employees. Only an ‘eligible employee’ who works for an ‘employer’ – as both terms are defined under Act – may obtain such benefits.

The Court of Appeals agreed with the district court that the plaintiff employee was not FMLA eligible pursuant to what is called the FMLA’s 50/75 Employee Threshold (to be FMLA eligible, an employer must employ at least 50 employees at, or within 75 miles of, the employee’s worksite at the time the FMLA leave was requested). Again, it was undisputed that the Road Commission did not employ at least 50 employees at, or within 75 miles of, his worksite at the time the plaintiff sought FMLA leave.

At this point, the employer should have been well into its touchdown dance. But there was a flag on the play – an incorrectly drafted employee manual. . . .

Continue reading →

Duty to Arbitrate Survives End of Employment Contracts.

05 Saturday Apr 2014

Posted by in 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, Arbitration, Arbitration, Collective Bargaining, Employment Contracts, Employment Law, Fair Labor Standards Act, United States Supreme Court

≈ Comments Off on Duty to Arbitrate Survives End of Employment Contracts.

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Sixth Circuit Holds That Duty To Arbitrate Survives Expiration Of Employment Contract, Requires Individual Arbitration, by Gregory V. Mersol, Baker & Hostetler

http://tinyurl.com/q7yg9s5

With the Supreme Court having issued a series of decisions overruling many of the roadblocks to the enforcement of arbitration agreements in the class context, we are now seeing more courts fill in the gaps as to whether and when employers may rely on such agreements.

The latest of these is the case of Huffman v. The Hilltop Companies, LLC, Case No. 13-3938 (6th Cir. Mar. 27, 2014), which concerned the question of whether the duty to arbitrate and limits to class arbitration extend beyond termination.  In one respect, the decision was obvious, but in another, it represents the growing, if at time reluctant, acceptance by courts of the enforceability of arbitration agreements. . . .

The Sixth Circuit Wrestles With When to Pull the Trigger on the Unconscionability Doctrine in Arbitration Clauses.

30 Saturday Nov 2013

Posted by in 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, Appellate Law, Arbitration, Class Actions, LexisNexis, Research, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on The Sixth Circuit Wrestles With When to Pull the Trigger on the Unconscionability Doctrine in Arbitration Clauses.

Tags

, , , , ,

Sixth Circuit Affirms District Court, Rejects Attorney’s Bid for Class-Wide Arbitration, by Kprofs2013, edited by D.A. Jeremy Telman, ContractsProf Blog

http://tinyurl.com/p9sryqw

This case started as a disagreement between a law firm and LexisNexis over billing practices. The parties’ disagreement was bound by an arbitration agreement. The law firm decided to bring two class actions over 500 million dollars against LexisNexis. The terms of the arbitration agreement and the lack of any definitive U.S. Supreme Court ruling on whether classwide arbitrability is a “gateway” or “subsidiary” question places the Sixth Circuit in an interesting conundrum.

What follows in this post at ContractsProf Blog is an analysis of the Sixth Court’s opinion, the ambiguous arbitration agreement, and the use, or lack thereof, of the unconscionability doctrine. -CCE