Here are just a few examples of Gafkay Law, PLC’s published cases:
McCrary v Oakwood Healthcare, Inc., 170 F.Supp.3d 981 (E.D. Mich. 2016) – Race Discrimination
Federal Court held a reasonable jury could find Defendant hospital failed to train its employees or provide a policy for handling race-based requests by patients resulting in those requests being placed in patient’s chart and honored unless and until an employee who is prevented from doing her job as a result of such a request complained.
Smith v Spectrum Health Sys. (unpublished), 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103016 – Race Discrimination and Retaliation
Court held there was a factual dispute on the plaintiff’s retaliation claim and denied Spectrum’s motion for summary judgment. The case involved an African American home health aide with Spectrum Health System. The plaintiff was removed from caring for a patient who requested White only care. She complained about the race discrimination. She was subsequently discharged from her position and brought a claim against Spectrum for retaliation.
Hyldahl v AT& T, 642 F.Supp. 2d 707 (E.D. Mich. 2009) – Family and Medical Leave Act
Jury verdict in favor of the Plaintiff for interference of her Family and Medical Leave Act rights was upheld by the Federal Court and attorney fees and liquidated damages were subsequently entered in favor of the Plaintiff.
Rosteutcher v MidMichigan Phys. Group, 332 F.Supp. 1049 (E.D. Mich. 2004) – Family Medical Leave Act
The Federal Court denied the employer’s summary judgment motion where there was a factual dispute whether an employee who suffered from seizures, migraines, and depression was discharged due to her disability or in violation of her Family and Medical Leave Act rights.
Henschel v Clare County Rd. Comm’n, 737 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 2013) – American with Disabilities Act
United States Sixth Circuit held where an employee lost his left leg above the knee and his employer would not allow him to return to work as an excavator operator, summary judgment was inappropriate as to his American with Disabilities Act claim because there existed genuine issues of material fact concerning whether hauling the excavator was an essential function of his position and whether he could operate the excavator safely.
Garlitz v Alpena Reg’l Med. Ctr., 834 F.Supp.2d 668 (E.D. Mich. 2011) – American with Disabilities Act and Pregnancy Discrimination
An acute-care medical facility was denied summary judgment on a medical technologist’s American with Disabilities Act claim where there was an issue of fact as to whether a real job offer had been made. Pregnancy discrimination claim also survived where question whether she was treated differently because of pregnancy-related issues.