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when he learned of false statements on the employment application, the employee was terminated or the job offer was withdrawn.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.
- Of Counsel
An of counsel 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 has an ever-growing practice in Alternative Dispute ...
Add a comment
- Employment Liability
- Labor Law
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
- Department of Labor (DOL)
- Employment Discrimination
- Human Resources
- Wage & Hour
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
- National Labor Relations Act
- National Labor Relations Board
- Employment Agreement
- Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
- Minimum Wage
- Whistleblower Protection Act
- Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
- Regulatory Law
- Paid Medical Leave Act (PMLA)
- OSHA Issues
- First Amendment
- Unemployment Benefits
- Title VII
- Sick Leave
- Public Education
- Workplace Harassment
- At Will Employment
- Hostile Work Environment
- Business Risk Management
- Noncompete Agreements
- Transgender Issues
- Workers' Compensation
- Department of Justice
- Medicare Issues
- Class Actions
- Sexual Harassment
- Civil Rights
- Social Media
- Retail Liability
- Emergency Information
- Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)
- Department of Education (DOE)
- Title IX
- Tax Law
- Medical Marijuana
- Right to Work
- Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)
- Union Organizing & Relations
- EEOC Issues New Proposed Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace
- Proposed Rule Change to Minimum Salary Requirements Would Expand Overtime Pay to Millions of Workers not Currently Eligible
- U.S. Supreme Court Bolsters Right of Employees to Request Religious Accommodations
- U.S. Supreme Court Rules Website Designer Free to Refuse Services Under First Amendment
- NLRB Restores FedEx II Standard When Factoring Workers’ Entrepreneurship
- Sixth Circuit Adopts New “Similarly Situated” Employees Evaluation Standard for Issuing Court-Approved Notice of FLSA Suits
- Unanimous Supreme Court Finds Lip Service not Good Enough for Disabled Student
- Michigan Senate Votes to Repeal 2012 Right-to-Work Law
- Michigan Appellate Court Overturns Decision on Minimum Wage, Paid Sick Leave Requirements
- Michigan Supreme Court Ruling Could Result in High Exposure Claims Against Employers