Goodman Mucha joins firm’s Healthcare Industry Group

DATE: December 5, 2019

CONTACT: John Cornwell (248) 901-4008

Bloomfield Hills, MI — December 5, 2019 — Karen Goodman Mucha recently joined the Healthcare Industry Group of Plunkett Cooney, one of the Midwest’s oldest law firms.

“It’s great to have Karen on board as a member of our healthcare team,” said Mark S. Kopson, Plunkett Cooney’s Healthcare Industry Group Leader. “She’s an exceptionally skilled attorney, and her diverse in-house counsel experience will be of tremendous benefit to our clients.”

An of counsel attorney in the firm’s Bloomfield Hills office, Goodman Mucha focuses her practice primarily in the area of healthcare law. She has extensive experience drafting commercial and governmental managed care contracts; managing complex health care and employment litigation; handling health care transactions for a variety of providers; ensuring Medicare and regulatory compliance for health care providers with a particular focus on home health and hospice providers; and reviewing, drafting and revising health system vendor agreements, including those for information technology.

Goodman Mucha has over 30 years of experience as in-house counsel for a home health and hospice provider, physician organizations, medical centers and managed care organizations. She has handled a variety of industry-related issues, including compliance and code of conduct programs, fraud and abuse, HIPAA, patient care issues, and agreement disputes with professional service, educational affiliation, system-wide vendor and vendor procurement and payors.

Goodman Mucha received her master’s degree from the Chan School of Public Health at Harvard University in 1986. She received her law degree from Wayne State University Law School in 1983 and her undergraduate degree from the University of Pennsylvania in 1980. Goodman Mucha is a member of the American Health Lawyers Association, the State Bar of Michigan and the Health Care Compliance Association, from which she earned a Certificate in Health Care Compliance.

Plunkett Cooney’s Healthcare Industry Group was formed to meet the unique needs of clients in the increasingly complex business of healthcare. Using a multi-specialty approach, the firm’s attorneys solve and work to prevent problems on behalf of all types of healthcare providers, payors and health-related businesses. The firm’s clients include physicians and physician networks, single- and multi-specialty professional practices, physician-hospital organizations, integrated delivery networks, pharmacies, ambulatory surgery centers, long-term care facilities and many others.

Established in 1913, Plunkett Cooney is a leading provider of business and litigation services to clients in the private and public sectors. The firm employs approximately 140 attorneys in seven Michigan cities, Chicago, Illinois, Columbus, Ohio and Indianapolis, Indiana. Plunkett Cooney has achieved the highest rating (AV) awarded by Martindale-Hubbell, a leading, international directory of law firms. The firm was also selected by Crain’s Detroit Business as its inaugural Law Firm of the Year.

For more information about Karen Goodman Mucha joining Plunkett Cooney, contact the firm’s Director of Marketing and Business Development  John Cornwell at (248) 901-4008; jcornwell@plunkettcooney.com.

DBusiness names Plunkett Cooney attorneys among Top Lawyers

DATE: December 2, 2019

CONTACT: John Cornwell (248) 901-4008

Bloomfield Hills, MI — December 2, 2019 —DBusiness magazine recently named 20 metro Detroit attorneys from Plunkett Cooney, one of the Midwest’s oldest and largest law firms, to its 2020 list of “Top Lawyers.”

The DBusiness Top Lawyers list was compiled based on a peer-review survey open to all metro Detroit lawyers. The publication polled 19,000 attorneys in Wayne, Oakland, Macomb, Washtenaw and Livingston counties to nominate lawyers among 50 practice areas. There is no commercial relationship to the listings, and no payment is required to be listed and listings cannot be purchased. The list was published in the November/December edition.

Below is a list of the Plunkett Cooney attorney who received the 2020 Top Lawyer honor from DBusiness:

Jennifer Andreou (Partner, Detroit) – Medical Malpractice Law

Michael P. Ashcraft, Jr. (Partner, Bloomfield Hills) – Legal Malpractice Law

Hilary A. Ballentine        (Senior Attorney, Bloomfield Hills) – Appellate Law

Douglas C. Bernstein    (Partner, Bloomfield Hills) – Bankruptcy & Creditor/Debtor Rights Law, Banking & Financial Service Law

Charles W. Browning    (Partner, Bloomfield Hills) – Insurance Law

Dennis G. Cowan           (Partner, Bloomfield Hills) – Land Use & Zoning

Lawrence R. Donaldson (Of Counsel, Bloomfield Hills) – Legal Malpractice

Jeffrey C.  Gerish           (Partner, Bloomfield Hills) – Appellate Law

Robert G. Kamenec       (Partner, Bloomfield Hills) – Appellate Law, Medical Malpractice Law

Mark S. Kopson             (Partner, Bloomfield Hills) – Health Care Law

Mary Massaron              (Partner, Bloomfield Hills) – Appellate Law

Laurel F. McGiffert        (Partner/Director of Diversity & Inclusion, Detroit) – Labor and Employment Law, Medical Malpractice

Kenneth C. Newa           (Partner, Bloomfield Hills) – Insurance Law, Litigation – Construction

Claudia D. Orr                (Senior Attorney, Detroit) – Litigation, Labor Employment Benefits

Stanley A. Prokop          (Of Counsel, Detroit) – Insurance Law

Mary Catherine Rentz    (Partner, Detroit) – Insurance Law

Anthony J. Rusciano     (Of Counsel, Bloomfield Hills) – Health Care Law

Scott H. Sirich                (Partner, Bloomfield Hills) – Litigation – Construction

Matthew J. Stanczyk      (Partner, Detroit) – Product Liability

Thomas P. Vincent        (President & CEO, Bloomfield Hills) – Labor and Employment Law

DBusiness is the region’s only independently-published, general-interest business magazine. It provides timely, local business intelligence and insights to over 150,000 readers, including business owners and decision-makers throughout metro Detroit.

Established in 1913, Plunkett Cooney is a leading provider of business and litigation services to clients in the private and public sectors. The firm employs approximately 140 attorneys in seven Michigan cities, Chicago, Illinois; Columbus, Ohio; and Indianapolis, Indiana. Plunkett Cooney has achieved the highest rating (AV) awarded by Martindale-Hubbell, a leading, international directory of law firms. The firm was also selected by Crain’s Detroit Business as its inaugural Law Firm of the Year.

For more information about Plunkett Cooney’s 2020 DBusiness “Top Lawyers,” contact the firm’s Director of Marketing & Business Development John Cornwell at (248) 901-4008; jcornwell@plunkettcooney.com.

Firm adds two attorneys to its transportation law practice group

DATE:  November 22, 2019

CONTACT:  John E. Cornwell (248) 901-4008

Bloomfield Hills, MI — November 22, 2019 — Attorneys Jamie Lynn McCutcheon and Michael A. Osman recently joined the Transportation Law Practice Group of Plunkett Cooney, one of the Midwest’s oldest law firms.

A member of the firm’s Detroit office, McCutcheon focuses her practice on the defense of first- and third-party auto liability cases on behalf of national insurance companies and their policyholders. These matters include potentially high-exposure litigation involving complex and catastrophic injuries. She also has experience handling subrogation matters.

A member of the State Bar of Michigan, McCutcheon is a 2010 graduate of the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law and a 1998 graduate of Eastern Michigan University.

Osman is also a member of the firm’s Detroit office who focuses his practice in the areas of first- and third-party automobile negligence. He represents employers and insurance policyholders in civil litigation involving Michigan’s No-Fault Law. These claims involve personal injury protection, uninsured/underinsured motorist disputes and bodily injury.

In addition, Osman has prior experience working with and defending the Michigan Automobile Insurance Placement Facility (MAIPF), an organization designed to provide auto insurance to eligible individuals who were uninsured at the time of a motor vehicle accident. He assisted the MAIPF with determining the eligibility of uninsured applicants and ultimate entitlement to personal injury protection insurance benefits.

– More –

Osman is a member of the State Bar of Michigan. He received his law degree from Wayne State University Law School in 2014 and his undergraduate degree, summa cum laude, from Wayne State University in 2011.

Plunkett Cooney’s Transportation Law Practice Group includes the talents of more than 20 attorneys who provide an array of litigation and risk management services, including expertise in the areas of trucking liability, first- and third-party auto liability, cross-border claims with Canada, fraud investigation services and emergency accident response.

Established in 1913, Plunkett Cooney is a leading provider of business and litigation services to clients in the private and public sectors. The firm employs approximately 140 attorneys in seven Michigan cities, Chicago, Illinois, Columbus, Ohio and Indianapolis, Indiana. Plunkett Cooney has achieved the highest rating (AV) awarded by Martindale-Hubbell, a leading, international directory of law firms. The firm was also recently selected by Crain’s Detroit Business as its inaugural Law Firm of the Year.

For more information about Jamie Lynn McCutcheon and Michael A. Osman joining Plunkett Cooney, contact the firm’s Director of Marketing and Business Development John Cornwell at (248) 901-4008; jcornwell@plunkettcooney.com.

Recreational Marijuana Is Now Here

By:  Claudia D. Orr, Plunkett Cooney 

Recreational marijuana is now legal in Michigan and there are already several dispensaries (mostly in Ann Arbor) selling the product.  So, what should employers now be doing?  Reviewing and revising their drug testing policy!

The Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act, MCL 333.27951, et seq., specifically provides, in relevant part, the following:

This act does not require an employer to permit or accommodate conduct otherwise allowed by this act in any workplace or on the employer’s property. This act does not prohibit an employer from disciplining an employee for violation of a workplace drug policy or for working while under the influence of marihuana. This act does not prevent an employer from refusing to hire, discharging, disciplining, or otherwise taking an adverse employment action against a person with respect to hire, tenure, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of that person’s violation of a workplace drug policy or because that person was working while under the influence of marihuana.

MCL 333.27954 (3)(emphasis added).  As you may know, current testing methods only demonstrate that marijuana is in a person’s system, but they cannot determine whether someone is “under the influence” at the time of the test.  Thus, it is essential for an employer to have a policy that prohibits the use of illegal substances, including marijuana which remains unlawful under federal law, and provides for testing.  Without the policy, an employer will have to prove that the employee was under the influence while at work (i.e., blood shot eyes, smelling like marijuana, slurred speech, munchies…). This is often difficult to do.

Federal contractors are required to maintain a drug free workplace, including prohibiting the use of marijuana. But, more importantly, this is a safety and productivity issue for all employers.

I am recommending to most of my clients that they continue to test employees and terminate any employee who tests positive for so long as marijuana remains unlawful under federal law and/or until testing methods improve. Employers who do not have a drug testing policy should adopt one as soon as practicable. These policies should be written by an experienced employment attorney, such as the author.

In addition, out of fairness, employers who have a policy should alert employees that nothing has changed: testing positive for marijuana, even if smoked or ingested outside of work during non-working hours, will result in the termination of employment.  You do not want to a good employee to fail a drug test thinking this is now acceptable, if it is not under your company’s policies.

This article was written by Claudia D. Orr, who is Secretary of the Board of Detroit SHRM, a member of the Legal Affairs Committee, and an experienced labor/employment attorney at the Detroit office of Plunkett Cooney (a full service law firm and resource partner of Detroit SHRM) and an arbitrator with the American Arbitration Association. She can be reached at corr@plunkettcooney.com or at (313) 983-4863. For further information go to: http://www.plunkettcooney.com/people-105.html

 

Detroit SHRM encourages members to share these articles with others, inside and outside their organization, as long as its name and logo, and the author’s information, is included in the re-post of the article. December 2019.

Plunkett Cooney named among ‘Best Law Firms’ in America

Date: November 25, 2019

Contact: John Cornwell (248) 901-4008

Bloomfield Hills, MI — November 25, 2019 — For the 10th consecutive year, Plunkett Cooney, one of the Midwest’s oldest and largest law firms, has been ranked as one of the “Best Law Firms” in the nation in 2020 by U.S. News and Best Lawyers®.

Rankings were given to law firms in 188 metropolitan areas and eight states based on rankings of more than 14,000 firms in 127 specialties. Using a tiered rather than a ranked system, Plunkett Cooney was recognized in the following first- and second-tier metropolitan categories:

  • Appellate Practice
  • Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law
  • Commercial Litigation
  • Environmental Law
  • Health Care Law
  • Insurance Law
  • Legal Malpractice Law – Defendants
  • Litigation – Construction
  • Litigation – Municipal
  • Litigation – Real Estate
  • Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants
  • Mortgage Banking Foreclosure Law
  • Municipal Law
  • Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants
  • Professional Malpractice Law – Defendants
  • Real Estate Law

– More –

The U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” rankings are based on a rigorous evaluation process that includes the collection of client and lawyer evaluations, peer review from leading attorneys in their field, and review of additional information provided by law firms as part of the formal submission process. To be eligible for a ranking in a particular practice area and metro region, a law firm must have at least one lawyer who is included in Best Lawyers in that particular practice area and metro.

Receiving a tier designation reflects the high level of respect a firm has earned among other leading lawyers and clients in the same communities and the same practice areas for its scope of practice, understanding of business and needs, expertise, responsiveness, integrity, cost-effectiveness, civility and client reference.

Best Lawyers is the oldest and most respected attorney ranking service in the world. For more than 30 years, the Best Lawyers in America list recognizes the top lawyers in each practice area and metropolitan region in the country. U.S. News & World Report is a multi-platform publisher of news and information.

Established in 1913, Plunkett Cooney is a leading provider of transactional and litigation services to clients in the private and public sectors. The firm employs approximately 140 attorneys in seven Michigan cities, Chicago, Illinois, Columbus, Ohio and Indianapolis, Indiana. Plunkett Cooney has achieved the highest rating (AV) awarded by Martindale-Hubbell, another leading, international directory of law firms. The firm was also selected by Crain’s Detroit Business as its inaugural Law Firm of the Year winner.

For more information about Plunkett Cooney’s recognition as a 2020 “Best Law Firm,” contact the firm’s Director of Marketing and Business Development John Cornwell at (248) 901-4008; jcornwell@plunkettcooney.com.

Are your arbitration agreements “up to code”?

By: Melissa M. Tetreau, Bodman PLC

Employers for a variety of reasons, including procedural expediency, confidentiality, and avoidance of a jury, regularly use arbitration agreements. Obviously, the most critical part of an arbitration agreement is ensuring its enforceability. To many employers, it seems only fair that an employee who files a claim against it should be required to pay a portion of the arbitrator’s fee and costs. But, employer beware. If an employee brings a claim under a law which provides for the losing party to pay the prevailing party’s attorney fees, these fee-splitting provisions may be invalid.

On November 22, 2019, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (covering Alabama, Georgia, and Florida), invalidated the fee-splitting portion of P.I.P., Inc.’s arbitration agreement.[1] Three former P.I.P. employees filed a lawsuit alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and seeking, among other things, costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant to the FLSA. Because they had signed employment contracts that included an arbitration provision, P.I.P. asked the trial court to send the parties to arbitration.

In response, the employees pointed out language in the agreement stating that each party “will pay its own fees and expense, including attorney fees.” The employees argued this language invalidated the arbitration provision because they were entitled to have P.I.P. pay their attorney fees and costs as a remedy under the FLSA. They claimed that the agreement improperly denied them that right.

P.I.P made the logical response – the arbitration agreement simply required each party to pay their own way through arbitration. Nothing in the agreement barred the arbitrator from shifting the fees after he or she made a decision. The trial court disagreed and invalidated the arbitration provision. After P.I.P. appealed, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court. It found that because the arbitration provision stated that each “party to any arbitration will pay its own fees and expense,” the arbitrator had no discretion to shift fees after a decision. Since the employees could prevail at arbitration and not receive the attorneys’ fees and costs they would be entitled to, that portion of the arbitration provision was invalid. The court of appeals sent the case back to the trial court to decide if only the fee-splitting provision was invalid, or if this invalidated the entire arbitration provision. If the trial court decides the latter, P.I.P will be forced to defend the case in court.

Although this decision is not binding on courts in Michigan, it demonstrates the trick bag in which arbitration agreements can put employers. While the story may be complicated, the moral is simple: review your arbitration agreements with experienced counsel.

Melissa Tetreau is a member of the Detroit SHRM Legal Affairs Committee and an attorney with the law firm of Bodman PLC.  She can be reached at MTetreau@bodmanlaw.com.

                                     

Detroit SHRM encourages members to share these articles with others, inside and outside their organization, as long as its name and logo, and the author’s information, is included in the re-post of the article.  November 2019.

[1] Hudson v. P.I.P., Inc., No. 19-11004 (11th Cir. Nov. 22, 2019).

What Disabilities Does the ADA Cover?

By: Melissa Tetreau, Bodman PLC

 

To answer the title’s question, the ADA covers only current disabilities – at least according to the Seventh Circuit (covering Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin). To many of us, this seems like the obvious answer. However, Ronald Shell, an applicant for employment at Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF), thought otherwise.

Shell applied to work as an intermodal equipment operator with BSNF, where he would operate cranes and work around other heavy equipment.  Due to these job responsibilities, BNSF classifies this position as “safety sensitive.” BNSF requires all applicants to safety sensitive positions to undergo a medical examination after receiving a conditional offer of employment.

Shell was treated no differently. After BNSF extending him a conditional offer of employment, it sent him for a medical examination. The examination revealed that Shell, who is 5’10” and 331 pounds, had a BMI of 47.5.

Why does this matter? BNSF had a policy of not hiring applicants for safety sensitive positions who had a BMI of 40 or higher. Its reasoning was that individuals with a BMI of 40 or higher are at a substantially higher risk of developing certain medical conditions, such as sleep apnea, heart disease, and diabetes. BNSF believed that a safety sensitive employee with a BMI of 40+ could experience a health issue and lose consciousness at any moment, including while operating heavy machinery.

As a result of Shell’s BMI, BNSF rescinded its offer. Unsurprisingly, Shell sued for discrimination on the basis of a perceived disability under the ADA. At the trial court, BNSF moved for summary judgment arguing, among other things, that Shell’s obesity was not a disability and there was no evidence that BNSF regarded him as having a disability. The trial court denied BNSF’s motion. The court agreed that obesity is not a disability under the ADA, but found a question of fact as to whether BNSF regarded Shell has having the allegedly obesity-related conditions of sleep apnea, heart disease, and diabetes.

BNSF appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The Seventh Circuit reiterated that the ADA covers individuals who are “regarded as” disabled.  The ADA defines this as “being regarded as having [a physical or mental] impairment.” 42 U.S.C. 12102(1)(C). The Court emphasized the present participle in that definition – having. “It does not include something in the past that has ended or something yet to come.”[1] The Court then looked at a further definition of “being regarded as having such an impairment,” which is when an employee is discriminated against “because of an actual or perceived physical or mental impairment.” 42 U.S.C. 12102(3)(A). As the Court noted, a disability that does not yet exist can be neither actual nor perceived.

The Seventh Circuit reversed the trial court’s denial of summary judgment and held that the ADA’s “regarded as” prong does not cover future disabilities. Although this case is not binding on any courts in Michigan, which is in the Sixth Circuit, the decision is in line with other courts that have addressed the issue.  Nonetheless, when an outcome turns on interpreting a “present participle,” employers are well-advised to consult with their experienced employment counsel when making those sorts of decisions under the ADA.

Melissa Tetreau is a member of the Detroit SHRM Legal Affairs Committee and an attorney with the law firm of Bodman PLC.  She can be reached at MTetreau@bodmanlaw.com.

                                     

Detroit SHRM encourages members to share these articles with others, inside and outside their organization, as long as its name and logo, and the author’s information, is included in the re-post of the article.  November 2019.

[1] Shell v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company, No. 19-1030 (CA 7, Oct. 29, 2019).

Plunkett Cooney attorney Ruggirello named ‘Up & Coming Lawyer’

DATE: November 8, 2019

CONTACT: John Cornwell (248) 901-4008

Bloomfield Hills, MI — November 8, 2019 — Plunkett Cooney insurance coverage attorney, Nicole C. Ruggirello, was recently named to the 2019 Class of “Up & Coming Lawyers” by Michigan Lawyers Weekly (MLW), an industry publication serving the state’s legal community.

Members of the MLW editorial staff reviewed numerous “Up & Coming Lawyer” nominations. Particular emphasis is placed on legal accomplishments and community involvement within each nominee’s first 10 years of practice. After the nomination review process was completed, 30 honorees were selected. Each will be interviewed for a special section in the legal industry publication’s Dec. 9 edition. Honorees will also be saluted by the newspaper and members of the state’s legal community during an “Up & Coming Lawyers Award Luncheon” on Dec. 5 at the Detroit Marriott in Troy.

A member of the firm’s Bloomfield Hills office, Nicole represents several major property and casualty insurance companies in coverage cases throughout the Midwest. Her coverage work includes handling environmental contamination, construction defect and high-exposure product liability claims.

Admitted to practice in Wisconsin and in the state and federal courts in Michigan and Illinois, Ruggirello received both her law and undergraduate degrees, magna cum laude, from the University of Notre Dame in 2011 and 2008, respectively.

– More –

Plunkett Cooney is recognized as one of the nation’s leading law firms for insurance coverage litigation. Several members of the firm’s Insurance Law Practice Group have been awarded the Chartered Property Casualty Underwriter (CPCU) designation. In addition to their litigation expertise, Plunkett Cooney attorneys work with their clients to develop new insurance products and to address emergent theories of legal liability.

Established in 1913, Plunkett Cooney is a leading provider of business and litigation services to clients in the private and public sectors. The firm employs approximately 140 attorneys in seven Michigan cities, Chicago, Illinois; Columbus, Ohio; and Indianapolis, Indiana. Plunkett Cooney has achieved the highest rating (AV) awarded by Martindale-Hubbell, a leading, international directory of law firms. The firm was also selected by Crain’s Detroit Business as its inaugural Law Firm of the Year. 

For more information about Nicole C. Ruggirello receiving the MLW “Up & Coming Lawyer” honor, contact the firm’s Director of Marketing and Business Development  John Cornwell at (248) 901-4008; jcornwell@plunkettcooney.com.

Employers take note: DOL nets record $322 million in back pay in FY2019

By: Miriam L. Rosen, McDonald Hopkins, PLC

With the end of the federal government’s 2019 Fiscal Year on September 30th, the various regulatory agencies are now reporting their “results.”  Think of it as earnings report season for public agencies.  One agency touting its 2019 accomplishments is the Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD), which enforces the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

For FY 2019, the WHD collected $322 million in back pay from employers surpassing the FY 2018’s record collections of $304 million. Announcing the results, the DOL noted that more than half of the back pay amount – $186 million – came from employers who failed to pay employees time-and-a-half overtime for work beyond 40 hours in a week. Another $40 million came from back pay for failure to pay employees at least the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.

The record collections come at a time of significant activity for the DOL.  With numerous vacancies and leadership changes at the DOL in the first two years of the Trump Administration, employers saw little change in the aggressive enforcement positions taken in the Obama era.  However, in April 2019, a new WHD Administrator, Cheryl Stanton, was sworn in and is now implementing changes to WHD policies and investigation procedures that many employers expected to see much earlier in the Trump Administration.  Following the resignation of DOL Secretary Alex Acosta in July, the new Secretary of Labor, Eugene Scalia, took office on September 30th and is widely expected to work more collaboratively with employers.

After years of fighting about the salary level for exempt employees, the DOL finalized a new rule in September 2019 raising the current salary level for exempt white collar status from $23,660 per year to $35,568 annually. The new rule is effective Jan. 1, 2020.  Employers should take steps to implement that new rule by reviewing the classification of current exempt positions under the new $35,568 threshold.

The new salary rule also provides an opportunity for employers to evaluate non-exempt pay practices to ensure that the types of errors that resulted in $322 million in back pay do not exist in their own organizations. Common pay practice errors that can result in FLSA violations include failing to count all hours worked, failing to include bonus or incentive pay in calculating the regular and overtime rate, failing to pay for travel time, automatic meal break deductions, and rounding errors. As embedded pay practices, these errors can sometimes be overlooked for years, but can result in significant liability when they are discovered in a DOL audit.

Employers should consult with their employment attorneys for advice on the new salary level rule, compliant pay practices, and other steps to avoid wage/hour violations.

This article was written by Miriam L. Rosen, who is Chair of the Legal Affairs Committee of Detroit SHRM and Chair of the Labor and Employment Law Practice Group in the Bloomfield Hills office of McDonald Hopkins PLC, a full service law firm. She can be reached at mrosen@mcdonaldhopkins.com or at (248) 220-1342.

Detroit SHRM encourages members to share these articles with others, inside and outside their organization, as long as its name and logo, and the author’s information, is included in the re-post of the article. October 2019.