termination

Subscribe to termination via RSS

Agreeing with the district court’s assessment that “résumé misrepresentations by a senior human resources professional represent an infraction so egregious as to defy correction by mere counseling or other lesser discipline,” the 6th Circuit on April 23, 2018, rejected an appeal from a summary judgment order on claims of pregnancy, race, and age discrimination and retaliation in Bailey v. Oakwood Healthcare, Inc..

Michelle Bailey, a 40 year old African-American woman, was fired from her position as a senior staffing professional at Oakwood Healthcare, Inc. (Oakwood) on the day she returned from a three-month maternity leave. During her maternity leave, her supervisor had identified deficiencies in her work performance that prompted the supervisor to go back and review her qualifications. When she checked, she found what Ms. Bailey acknowledged in deposition were “embellishments” on her employment application. In notifying Ms. Bailey of her termination, Oakwood relied on both the deficiencies and the misrepresentations. Ms. Bailey later sued, claiming that she was fired because of her pregnancy, her race and her age as well as in retaliation for concerns she had expressed about the rejection of employment applications of certain African-American candidates for employment at Oakwood prior to her maternity leave. The district court granted summary judgment in Oakwood’s favor on each of these counts.
Continue Reading Sixth Circuit upholds termination of human resources employee for employment application misrepresentations and performance deficiencies

In Ohio, it has been a long-standing principle that an employee injured at work could lose eligibility for temporary total disability compensation in a workers’ compensation claim when the employee is terminated by the employer for violation of a written work rule. The written work rule must define clearly the prohibited conduct, identify the conduct as a dischargeable offense, and was known or should have been known by the employee.

However, a recent court decision by the Franklin County Court of Appeals in State ex rel. Demellweek v. Indus. Comm, is limiting this defense for employers. In its ruling, the court held that employers will not be entitled to use the voluntary abandonment doctrine as a defense when the employer terminates an employee for a minor infraction.
Continue Reading Ohio court whittles away at employers’ defense of voluntary abandonment of employment in workers’ compensation cases

Almost a year ago, we wrote that a panel of the Sixth Circuit in EEOC v. Ford Motor Company, bucking the trend elsewhere, had held that an employer could be required to permit an employee to work from home as a reasonable accommodation for a disability. Last week, however, the entire Sixth Circuit, in an 8-5 decision, issued an opinion overturning the panel’s decision and finding that in-person attendance at the work site is generally an essential function of most jobs, particularly those that are interactive. The court recognized that advances in technology may mean that regular on-site attendance won’t be necessary for every job, but noted that the job of Jane Harris, on whose behalf the EEOC brought suit, as a resale buyer for Ford was not one that could be done from home.

Through the years, Ford had made numerous attempts to reasonably accommodate Ms. Harris, who suffered from irritable bowel syndrome, but none of these attempts, which included trials of telecommuting, were successful. Ultimately, Ms. Harris asked Ford to be permitted to work from home up to four days per week. The nature of her job, however, required teamwork, meetings with suppliers and stampers and on-site availability to participate in face-to-face interactions. These factors in the Court’s opinion all necessitated Ms. Harris to achieve regular and predictable on-site attendance. Accordingly, the Court upheld her termination from employment.
Continue Reading Sixth Circuit in EEOC v. Ford: Sometimes showing up really is an essential function of the job