This website uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience and improve functionality. To learn more, you may view our Privacy Policy here. By continuing to browse this website, you are accepting our use of cookies in accordance with our privacy policy.

I Accept
’PS’ To February’s Wages and Fringe Benefits Act Post

Last month, I wrote a post titled: “Michigan Appellate Court Calls for Conflict Panel to Decide Issue under Michigan Wages and Fringe Benefits Act (WFBA)."

I was pretty excited that, in Ramos v. Intercare Community Health Network, the Michigan Court of Appeals not only issued a published opinion concerning the WFBA, but had called for a special conflict panel to decide whether the prior holding in Reo v Lane Bryant, Inc, 211 Mich App 364 (1995), should be overturned. 

In Reo, the appellate court had examined whether an employee had the right to be free of retaliation/discrimination where the employee had exercised a right on the act on his own behalf. The Reo court held that the “employee must be exercising a right afforded by the act on behalf of another employee or other person. Simply exercising a right on one’s own behalf would not bring an employee within the purview of [MCL 408.483].” 

The majority in Ramos disagreed with that holding, but was bound to follow the precedent. 

The Ramos court’s request for a special panel to revisit the holding in Reo was summarily denied by an order of the appellate court on Feb.21. I am now slightly less excited about the Ramos opinion, but it is still a treat to have a published opinion addressing a Michigan wage law.

Share: Twitter Facebook LinkedIn Email

Add a comment

Type the following characters: foxtrot, papa, hotel, romeo

* Indicates a required field.

Employment Law Guide

Topics

Recent Updates

Plunkett Cooney Blogs