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when he learned of false statements on the employment application, the employee was terminated or the job offer was withdrawn.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
- Human Resources
- Labor Law
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
- Department of Labor (DOL)
- Employment Discrimination
- Employment Agreement
- Wage & Hour
- Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
- Workers' Compensation
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
- Title VII
- Regulatory Law
- Workplace Harassment
- Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
- Sick Leave
- National Labor Relations Act
- Paid Medical Leave Act (PMLA)
- OSHA Issues
- Minimum Wage
- Sexual Harassment
- National Labor Relations Board
- Transgender Issues
- Civil Rights
- Non-compete Agreements
- Social Media
- Whistleblower Protection Act
- Retail Liability
- Emergency Information
- Business Risk Management
- 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
- Remote Work Still Required Amid Covid-19 Surge in Michigan
- DOL Opinion Letter Withdrawals Continue Under Biden Administration
- Worker’s Comp Coverage Would Have Been A Good Thing for This Employer
- Important COVID-19 Updates for Michigan Employers
- What Employers Can Do to Protect Themselves, Employees in Age of Digital Harassment
- New Pact to Trigger Inter-Department Consultation
- Garnishment Error Results In Employer’s Debt
- Stunning Victory by Employer in Discrimination Case
- Michigan Governor’s COVID-19 Executive Orders Struck But Replaced
- Rare Published Opinion Bad News For Michigan Employers