My dad used to joke that some people will tell you something 50 different ways before they would lie about it… Well, the truth caught up with one fibber, and she reaped her just rewards, twice.
Let’s see how justice prevailed in the Jan. 26, 2017 opinion of the Michigan Court of Appeals in Davis v Ford Motor Company.
Nola Davis submitted an application for employment with Ford in February 2013. In it, she claimed she had never been fired from a job or convicted of a crime. Davis was hired and, a few months later, she called the company hotline to complain of sexual harassment. Eventually, she filed a lawsuit claiming sexual harassment.
During a deposition, Davis became flippant with defense counsel, refusing to say whether she had ever sued a prior employer and telling the attorney she could find it out for herself. Being a defense attorney, I understand how this was a little like waving a red flag in front of a bull.
The attorney discovered that Davis had been fired by three prior employers and had a misdemeanor conviction in 2008. The information was turned over to Ford’s Office of General Counsel and, in turn, to the human resources department.
By June 2014, Davis’ employment was terminated for providing false information in her employment application. Thereafter, Davis brought additional claims of intentional discrimination and retaliation, alleging she was fired for her prior complaint of sexual harassment.
A former human resources manager at Ford, testified that he had a general awareness of Davis’ call to the hotline, but he had no knowledge of the lawsuit that had followed. He further testified that he had received the information from the general counsel’s office and had, thereafter, determined that Davis had provided false information on her employment application. As a result, the HR manager made the decision to terminate Davis’ employment.
The employment application gave notice that any misrepresentation would be grounds for discharge. The HR manager indicated in an affidavit that, in the past when he learned of false statements on the employment application, the employee was terminated or the job offer was withdrawn.
The trial court found that Davis had only showed that she was discharged after she had brought her sexual harassment claim, not because of it and dismissed her case. The appellate court affirmed. While Davis attempted to explain away her misrepresentations, neither court bought her flimsy excuses. Davis was dismissed from her employment and her lawsuit was dismissed as well.
This case shows the value of a good employment application. I always tell new clients that the acknowledgment on the last page is the first line of defense for employers and must be properly prepared.
At a minimum, it needs to include a 180-day limitations period, the requisite notice of the need to request an accommodation in writing under Michigan’s Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act, the warning about misrepresentations, a release for giving and obtaining information to validate information provided by the applicant and, of course, notice of the at-will nature of employment.
To ensure the acknowledgment is properly written, always consult with an experienced employment attorney.
- Senior Attorney
An attorney in the firm’s Detroit office, Claudia D. Orr exclusively represents and advises employers and management in employment and labor law matters.
Ms. Orr's clients include Fortune 500 companies, local governments ...
Add a comment
SubscribeRSS Plunkett Cooney LinkedIn Page Plunkett Cooney Twitter Page Plunkett Cooney Facebook Page
- Employment Liability
- Department of Labor (DOL)
- Labor Law
- Title VII
- Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
- Employment Discrimination
- OSHA Issues
- Human Resources
- Wage & Hour
- Sick Leave
- Paid Medical Leave Act (PMLA)
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
- Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
- Employment Agreement
- Civil Rights
- National Labor Relations Act
- Minimum Wage
- Non-compete Agreements
- Social Media
- National Labor Relations Board
- Regulatory Law
- Transgender Issues
- Retail Liability
- Whistleblower Protection Act
- Emergency Information
- Workers' Compensation
- Business Risk Management
- Workplace Harassment
- Class Actions
- Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)
- Hostile Work Environment
- Department of Education (DOE)
- Title IX
- Tax Law
- Medical Marijuana
- Right to Work
- Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)
- Union Organizing & Relations
- Michigan Governor’s COVID-19 Executive Orders Struck But Replaced
- Rare Published Opinion Bad News For Michigan Employers
- DOL Issues Partially Revised Regulations Regarding Paid Sick Leave Under FFCRA
- Grieving the Loss of the Company’s Social Media Accounts
- New Federal Employee Leave Laws – the Confusion That Keeps on Coming
- 8 (no, Make it 7) Hiring Lessons Learned at University
- Masks and Testing Under the Americans With Disabilities Act
- Michigan Issues New COVID-19 Return to Work Rules With Enforceable Workplace Standards
- Michigan’s Shelter in Place Continues Through May 15, With Modifications
- The Constantly Changing Coronavirus Landscape and its Effects on Michigan Employers