’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: november, tango, three, whisky, six

* Indicates a required field.

Employment Law Guide


Recent Updates

Plunkett Cooney Blogs