By: Claudia D. Orr

Under federal law, retaliation claims are more dangerous than discrimination claims because of the differences in proofs.  But, because retaliation claims “arise” following the exercise of rights (generally by the employee, but not necessarily so), there is usually an opportunity to work with experienced employment attorneys to avoid such claims. In the published opinion of Rogers v Henry Ford Health System, the federal Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reinstated a retaliation claim that may have been avoidable with better strategy, testimony and documentation.  Let’s look at what went wrong.

The Plaintiff, Monica Rogers, has been employed by the Henry Ford Health System (“HFHS”) for over 30 years, mostly in the Human Resources Department.  She is African American and, at the time the lawsuit was filed, she was in her sixties. In 2007, Rogers became a Consultant in the Organizational Human Resources Development (“OHRD”) Department. The OHRD Consultant was a newly created position requiring a bachelor’s degree, but HFHS waived this requirement for her.  As I often tell my clients, no good deed ever goes unpunished…

Between 2008 and 2013, Rogers received mixed performance reviews from three different direct supervisors. While there was some positive feedback, there was considerable criticism concerning interpersonal problems (e.g., more focused on what other employees are doing than on her job, initiating harmful gossip, inciting negativity in workforce, etc.). Given her affect on the team, Rogers was referred to the Employee Assistance Program as part of a formal disciplinary action.

In 2012, two Senior OHRD Consultants left but were not replaced. Rogers began preforming some of their duties and, by the end of 2012, Rogers began asking for a reclassification to Senior OHRD Consultant. This position requires a Master’s Degree, which Rogers does not have. Recall she does not even have her bachelor’s degree.  Rogers thought the requirement should be waived again. When it was not, Rogers filed an internal complaint of race/age discrimination. On July 3, 2013, a month after Roger’s internal complaint was found to lack merit, Rogers initiated a charge alleging discrimination and retaliation with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”).

In August and September 2013, several coworkers began to express concerns about Roger’s behavior indicating she was acting euphoric, laughing really loud, swaying back and forth, touching a coworker with both hands during a meeting and other strange and erratic behavior.  One coworker expressed concern because he was aware that Rogers had taken a bat to the car windows of her husband’s mistress’s vehicle.

Based on the reports, the Vice President of Human Resources (“VP of HR”) met with Rogers, placed her on paid leave, and referred her to the EAP for a fitness for duty examination. Rogers met with an HFHS physician for the examination, who cleared her to return to work.  According to Rogers, the physician “said to her ‘I don’t know why they sent you down here’ and apologized.” It escapes me why an employer would ever use one of its own physicians for this purpose.  Always consult with your employment attorney before taking any action that implicates the Americans with Disabilities Act because it is a very complicated law and requires high level analysis and strategy.  At this point, Rogers filed her second EEOC charge claiming retaliation for having previously filed her earlier charge.

A week after returning to work, the VP of HR again met with Rogers to provide her with career options. According to Rogers, she was told she could take a severance package or she could accept a transfer to HFHS’s subsidiary Health Alliance Plan (“HAP”) where she would work in Human Resources as a Business Partner.  According to the VP of HR, she was provided a third option: remaining in her current OHRD Consultant position.

Apparently, the “three” choices were not well documented in any writing that Rogers signed, or this issue would not have been in dispute. Document, document, document!  Rogers should have been given a memo that made it clear that she could remain in her current position, but that she was being offered an exciting new opportunity at HAP that was hers if she was interested.  And, in my opinion, suggesting to an employee who has two pending EEOC charges that she should consider going away for some severance is a horrible idea because it shows you don’t want her there and are willing to pay her to go away.  If you are willing to pay the employee/charging party some severance, it should be through the EEOC’s mediation process and in settlement of the charges.

There is one further unfortunate bit of evidence. The VP of HR testified that “he gave Rogers the option of transferring to HAP because: ‘that way it would not put her right in the same area … you know, because we knew that at that point that she had an outstanding EEOC complaint and we just thought that that would give her kind of some space from all of that.’”  Not good.  The testimony tied the transfer to the pending EEOC charges.

While Rogers took the transfer at the same pay and has received pay increases since, she testified that her opportunities at HAP are more limited and it is an inferior position within the HFHS structure. She remains employed there today in HR.

After the EEOC found probable cause that Rogers was placed on administrative leave and reassigned in retaliation for having filed her previous charge, Rogers filed suit. The federal district court granted the summary judgment motion filed by HFHS, dismissing Rogers’ complaint and finding that she had failed to make out a case of discrimination or retaliation. Rogers timely appealed.

The dismissal of the discrimination claims was affirmed. There is no need to run through the Sixth Circuit’s analysis, but suffice it to say that Rogers was unable to show that she was qualified for the Senior OHRD Consultant position she sought (which required a Master’s Degree) or that HFHS had treated anyone similarly situated more favorably.

In reversing the dismissal of the retaliation claim, the Sixth Circuit noted that, unlike discrimination claims which require a materially adverse employment action, in the context of a retaliation claim, the plaintiff only needs to show that the challenged action ‘“well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination’. This showing is less burdensome than what a plaintiff must demonstrate for a Title VII discrimination claim.”

The court found that a “reasonable factfinder could conclude that Rogers suffered materially adverse actions” when “Rogers was referred to a fitness-for-duty exam, placed on leave…offered a choice about her future employment with HFHS”.  Moreover, HFHS failed to rebut Rogers’ assertion that her position at HAP was inferior to her OHRD Consultant position. Since, the cumulative effect could dissuade a reasonable employee from filing a charge of discrimination, an adverse action was established. Rogers only had to show a causal connection between the adverse actions and the filing of her first charge.  The court found the approximate two month temporal proximity between the two events satisfied this element.

HFHS stated a legitimate non-retaliatory reason for sending Rogers for the fitness-for-duty exam, which Rogers was unable to show to be pretext (complaints about her bizarre behavior). However, after these concerns were addressed, and HFHS’s own doctor cleared Rogers to return to work, the court found there was no basis to present her with career choices. And, the testimony of the VP of HR tying those choices to the EEOC charges sealed the reversal and reinstatement of the retaliation claim. There is a short dissenting opinion, but the retaliation claim is reinstated. Incidentally, the EEOC filed an amicus brief on appeal, weighing in. So, we know this was an important case to it.

The circumstances above played out over a period of just a few months and are a perfect example of when an experienced employment attorney, such as the author, should be consulted. When you see the claims headed your way, step out of the way and call for help.

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).  She can be reached at or at (313) 983-4863. For further information go to:   

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. August 2018.

MWC Workplace Wellness Works Training- November 6

By: Michigan Wellness Council


Sneak Peek

TRAINING – November 6, 2018:
Workplace Wellness That Works

(Day 1 Of Two-Day Conference)

Part 4 of a 10-Part Series
(This is Step 4, out of 10 Steps, derived from Laura’s book, Workplace Wellness That Works. She will be outlining 10 steps to improve upon how we’re designing and delivering workplace wellness.)

For a deeper dive, join Laura Putnam on November 6th in Troy, MI for a day-long Workplace Wellness That Works training session. In the meantime, share your thoughts on promoting health and well-being in the workplace!


Disease Management.

Health Risk Assessments.

Population Health Management.

Risk Reduction.

The field of workplace wellness abounds with clinical, impersonal, negative, fear-inducing terms like these. And, we wonder why so many people opt out of employee wellness?

As the world of learning and development discovered long ago, led by the research of Donald Clifton with Gallup and popularized by speaker author movie-star-looking Marcus Buckingham, most people aren’t motivated when they’re told what’s wrong with them. The whole “identify your weaknesses” followed up by “here’s how you can correct them” is not only demotivating for most, it also doesn’t serve the best interests of their organization. Rather, people do better, and so do the organizations they work for, when they Start with What’s Right.

The world of workplace wellness could learn a lot from this strengths-first approach, especially if we’re serious about finding better solutions to engage people. And, considering that 80% of eligible employees are opting out, it’s high time we chose a different path.

Start with What’s Wrong

So, let’s step back and take a look at how we’ve been doing it. The classic model of workplace wellness, which borrows heavily from the medical model, usually goes something like this:

  1. Identify what’s wrong (e.g., identify “risk factors” and “health risk assessments”).
  2. Give feedback on what’s wrong.
  3. Give people the tools to “correct” what’s wrong.
  4. Hope that people will be inspired to engage with an array of well-being programs, whether it be lunch n’ learns, fitness challenges, or mindfulness programs.

In other words, most wellness programs are based on the outdated belief is that fear catalyzes action. Rationally, this fear-based, negative-first, here’s-what’s-wrong-with-you approach, makes sense. Why not notify people as to what’s wrong and then help them to correct it?

The problem is we’re not rational. Rather, we are emotional beings, especially when it comes to making a change.

You’d think, for example, that having a heart attack would be enough to “scare” someone into making lifestyle changes. Not so. Research shows that only 25% of post-cardiac patients elect to enroll in lifestyle management programs, after being advised by their well-meaning cardiologist to “Make these changes – or else you will die.” And of those, 90% drop out within a year.

Here’s just a short list of some of the disadvantages of taking this negative-first approach:

  • Knowing your numbers (e.g. your “risk factors”) rarely translates into action;
  • Most people already know that they’re overweight, stressed out, not getting enough exercise, the list goes on;
  • Health risk assessments can feel mundane, stigmatizing and even threatening, especially when they’re tied to an incentive or penalty;
  • Negative emotions narrow awareness, reduce flexible thinking and diminish our capacity to make change; and

A negative-first approach erodes self-confidence & self-efficacy.

Start with What’s Right

So, let’s go back to our post-cardiac patients. Bucking the usual “Make these changes or else you’ll die” mantra, Dean Ornish, leading cardiologist, instead uses positive messaging like “embrace life.” And, rather than shaming patients for making “bad” choices, he and his and team encourage patients to view setbacks as opportunities to learn. The difference? After one year, 90% of his patients are engaging in healthy lifestyle changes, and after three years, 77% are still going strong.

As we’ve learned in the learning and development space, employees who know their strengths and are applying these strengths everyday are seven times more likely to be highly engaged in their work (in comparison with those who are not), according to Gallup.

So, it’s time that we do the same in the world of workplace wellness and Start with What’s Right!

Here’s a short list of some of the advantages of a Start with What’s Right approach:

  • Starting with What’s Right builds positive emotions and inspires higher levels of engagement;
  • Positivity and “positivity resonance” (positivity in the context of others) sparks more creative and complex thinking;
  • A positive-first approach is more likely to tap into intrinsic motivators;
  • Starting with what’s right helps to sustain lifestyle changes over time.

Simply put, positive emotions and starting with strengths is likely to expand our thinking, and ultimately, accelerate engagement and performance.

If you want to move people – much like an agent of change – think less about starting a program, and more about starting a movement

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Laura Putnam is the award-winning author of the #1 Amazon Hot New Release in HR & Personnel Management book, Workplace Wellness That Works, and founder of Motion Infusion, a leading provider of well-being and human performance speaking and training services. Her work has been covered by MSNBC, The New York Times, US News & World Report, Entrepreneur, Business Insider, and NPR. Learn more about Laura at her website and follow her on LinkedIn.

Contact to sponsor the Workplace Wellness that Works Training
Register for Upcoming Events

Want to save on the cost of MWC events? Renew your MWC membership (or become a member) to get discounts.

Are you student? Contact us for student rates.

Enjoy your day!
Contact: Rita Patel, Executive Director

American Society of Employers (ASE) announces job fair for veterans and individuals with disabilities on August 23 in Southfield

By: American Society of Employers

Livonia, Mich. —August 6, 2018 — The American Society of Employers (ASE), one of the nation’s oldest and largest employer associations, will co-host a Veteran’s Job Fair on Thursday, August 23, from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. at the Southfield Pavilion.  In addition, resume and interviewing workshops will be available starting at 8:00 a.m.

Joining ASE as co-hosts are the Michigan Industry Liaison Group (MILG), Detroit VA Healthcare System, Southfield Veterans’ Commission, Oakland County Michigan Works, and Michigan Rehabilitation Services.   Ally and New Horizons are event sponsors.   Chemical Bank, Cooper Standard, Federal Mogul, Henry Ford Health System, ITC, Kelly Services, and Logicalis are contributing sponsors.

The job fair is open to all, but is targeted to military veterans, individuals with disabilities, and their families.  The event is free to both employers and job seekers.

ASE President and CEO, Mary E. Corrado, made the announcement and stated, “ASE is pleased to co-host the Veterans Job Fair again this year.  With the focus on veterans and individuals with disabilities, two underserved populations, our goal is to ensure that doors are open and welcoming for these two communities.”

The Southfield Pavilion is located at 26000 Evergreen Rd Southfield, MI 48076.  Registration for employers can be found on the ASE website.  Participants interested in attending can visit the MILG website for additional information or to register (not mandatory).

About the American Society of Employers (ASE) – a Centennial Organization

The American Society of Employers (ASE) is a not-for-profit trade association providing people-management information and services to Michigan employers. Since 1902, member organizations have relied on ASE to be their single, cost-effective source for information and support, helping to grow their bottom line by enhancing the effectiveness of their people. Learn more about ASE at

Nighswander joins Plunkett Cooney’s Litigation Department

By: Plunkett Cooney

DATE:  August 3, 2018

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

BLOOMFIELD HILLS, Mich. – August 3, 2018 – Attorney Katherine M. Nighswander recently joined the Transportation Law and Torts & Litigation practice groups of Plunkett Cooney, one of the Midwest’s oldest and largest law firms.

Nighswander, who is a member of the firm’s Bloomfield Hills office, focuses her practice in the areas of transportation law and litigation. She represents insurers and its insureds in matters involving no-fault law and motor vehicle negligence, premises liability, dramshop and general negligence allegations.

In addition to no-fault automobile and first-and third-party motor vehicle cases, Nighswander has experience defending personal injury claims, including dog bites; slips/trips and falls; falling objects; negligent hiring, training and supervision of employees; vicarious liability of employees; and product liability matters; as well as allegations of food contamination; foodborne illness and foreign materials in food.

A member of the State Bar of Michigan and Oakland County Bar Association, Nighswander received her law degree, cum laude, from Michigan State University College of Law in 2013 and her undergraduate degree, summa cum laude, in 2010 from Saginaw Valley State University.

Plunkett Cooney’s Torts & Litigation Practice Group features the collective talents of attorneys who focus on the defense of all manners of civil litigation, including construction disputes, motor vehicle negligence, liquor liability, retail liability, toxic torts and premises liability, including slip and falls, trip and falls and open and obvious dangers.

Plunkett Cooney’s motor vehicle liability practice includes attorneys in the states of Michigan, Illinois, Indiana and Ohio and extends to the resolution of cross-border claims stemming from disputes in Canada. The firm’s attorneys serve as panel counsel to some of the largest insurance providers in the world, providing litigation defense representation in the areas of motor vehicle liability, fraudulent claims, no-fault law and trucking liability.

Established in 1913, Plunkett Cooney is one of the nation’s oldest and largest law firms with approximately 300 employees, including over 150 attorneys in eight Michigan cities, as well as in Chicago, Illinois, Columbus, Ohio and Indianapolis, Indiana. The firm, which provides a range of transactional and litigation services, has achieved the highest rating (AV) awarded by Martindale-Hubbell. Fortune magazine has also named Plunkett Cooney among the top commercial law firms in the United States.

For more information about Katherine Nighswander joining Plunkett Cooney’s Litigation Department, contact the firm’s Director of Marketing & Business Development John Cornwell at (248) 901-4008 or

American Society of Employers’ (ASE’s) Talent Symposium Set for September 13th

By: American Society of Employers

Livonia, Mich. —August 1, 2018 — The American Society of Employers (ASE), one of the nation’s oldest and largest employer associations, announces its Talent Symposium will be held on September 13 at the MSU Management Education Center in Troy.  The day-long event tackles one of the greatest issues organizations are facing today – talent acquisition and retention.  The Symposium announcement was made by ASE President & CEO, Mary E. Corrado.

“ASE’s most recent member survey revealed that the top human resource issue organizations are facing today revolve around employee recruitment and retention,” stated Corrado. “This conference not only covers innovative ways to acquire new talent but also how to grow talent from within your organization and build strong leaders. We’ve broken our sessions down into three core areas which include acquiring talent, managing that talent, and developing talent. All three are necessary to succeed in today’s competitive market.”

The Talent Symposium will feature a morning and afternoon keynote speaker. The morning speaker is Kevin C. Snyder, Ed.D., Professional Speaker and Price is Right Enthusiast.  Snyder will speak on The E.D.G.E Factor: Strategies from Extraordinary Leaders.  The afternoon keynote will be presented by Kurt A. David, Speaker, Best Selling Author, and Creator of the EMMY Award Winning TV Show From Glory Days.  David will present Positive Leadership: Nine Principles of Leadership Development.

Other highlights of the event include the following breakout sessions:

  • Using Professional Apprenticeship Programs to Fill the Skills Gap
  • Eight Ingredients That Help Teams Succeed
  • Failwave! The Next Wave of Failures Will Be Driven by a Lack of Talent
  • An Untapped Talent Pool – How Neurodiverse Workers Bring Valuable Skills to the Workplace
  • Culture Eats Strategy for Breakfast
  • How to Identify and Leverage Strengths in Any Situation
  • Preparing the Soil – Growing People That Belong
  • It’s Not Me, It’s You! Changing Defensive Communication™
  • Using LinkedIn to Grow Your Talent Pipeline and Improve Employer Branding

The ASE Talent Symposium on September 13 begins at 8:00 a.m. and concludes at 4:00 p.m. For a complete conference agenda, registration and pricing information, please visit the ASE website.

About the American Society of Employers (ASE) – a Centennial Organization

The American Society of Employers (ASE) is a not-for-profit trade association providing people-management information and services to Michigan employers. Since 1902, member organizations have relied on ASE to be their single, cost-effective source for information and support, helping to grow their bottom line by enhancing the effectiveness of their people. Learn more about ASE at

Michigan AG and Civil Rights Commission at odds over LGBT protections

By: Miriam L. Rosen 

There’s a battle brewing in Michigan…and this time it isn’t over college football.

In May 2018, the Michigan Civil Rights Commission (“MCRC”) issued a statement re-interpreting the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, the state civil rights law, to cover discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.  The MCRC took this action knowing that the state Attorney General disagreed with that position. Claudia Orr discussed this development in her post, Recent Developments Related to LGBTQ Rights, in the June 13, 2018 Detroit SHRM Digest.

On July 20, 2018, Attorney General Bill Schuette, who is currently running for governor, fired back at the MCRC in an Attorney General Opinion Letter (“AG Opinion”) stating that Michigan’s civil rights law does not  protect LGBT workers from discrimination based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.

The AG Opinion asserts that the MCRC did not have the authority to expand the law “because it conflicts with the original intent of the Legislature as expressed in the plain language of the Act, and as interpreted by Michigan courts.” According to the AG Opinion,  “[t]he word ‘sex’ was understood in 1976, when [state civil rights law] was enacted, to refer to the biological differences between males and females, not to refer to the concepts of sexual orientation or gender identify. “

The MCRC is not backing down, however.  In statement released on July 23, 2018, the  MCRC indicated that it would continue to follow its interpretive statement that the word “sex” in Michigan’s civil rights law protects lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender workers.  The MCRC’s position is that as “an independent, constitutionally created and established body,” it “is not bound by the opinion of the Attorney General.”

Where does this leave employers in Michigan? 

For employers with 15 or more employees covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the federal civil rights law, the EEOC has already taken the position that sexual orientation and gender identity are protected under that law.  But employers – both large and small – covered by Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act should understand that the MCRC will now accept and investigate claims of LGBT discrimination under state law.

One thing is certain…this dispute about which government entity has authority to interpret state civil rights law will be settled in court, not on the football field.

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 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. July 2018.

House of Representatives Introduces Bi-Partisan Anti-Workplace Harassment “EMPOWER Act”

By: Zeth D. Hearld

On July 17, 2018, a bipartisan group in the House of Representatives introduced new legislation in an effort to deter and reduce workplace harassment in light of the #MeToo movement. The proposed legislation, entitled the “Ending the Monopoly of Power Over Workplace Harassment through Education and Reporting Act” or the “EMPOWER Act” includes public disclosure requirements for employers, bans the use of certain types of nondisclosure/non-disparagement agreements, and provides alternative options for reporting workplace harassment. The protections of the Empower Act would apply to job applicants and employees as well as independent contractors, interns, and volunteers.

Content of the Proposed Legislation

  • Employer Obligations

The EMPOWER Act would make it an unlawful employment practice for employers to:

…enter into a contract or agreement with an employee or applicant, as a condition of employment, promotion, compensation, benefits . . . or as a term, condition, or privilege of employment, if that contract or agreement contains a non-disparagement or nondisclosure clause that covers workplace harassment…

In other words, the legislation would ban nondisclosure clauses in applications or employment contracts that cover sexual harassment or retaliation against employees for “reporting, resisting, opposing, or assisting in the investigation of workplace harassment.” However, the legislation would not apply to nondisclosure agreements that are included in separation agreements if the legal claims arose prior to the execution of the settlement agreement.

Notably, the Act would also create new reporting requirements for certain public companies related to workplace harassment settlements and judgments. The Act would require any employer that files a Form 10-K with the SEC to report the number of sexual harassment claims settled annually. Significantly, the Act would also require these employers to report whether any “judgments or awards (including through arbitration or administrative proceedings)” was entered against the company as well as the amount paid of the judgment, whether in whole or in part.

The Act would also prevent employers from receiving tax deductions for payments made due to harassment judgments or for attorneys’ fees related to workplace harassment litigation.

  • Employee Reporting Options

The Act would create a new “tip-line” with the EEOC that would allow employees to confidentially report workplace harassment, sexual harassment, and sexual assault. The EEOC would operate the tip-line in addition to the agency’s standard, formal complaint process. Although confidential, the tip-line would not be anonymous. In addition, the operators of the tip-line would be required to educate callers on additional methods of reporting, including filing a formal charge with the EEOC. The EMPOWER Act would not change the EEOC’s current investigatory powers. Employees would still have the ability to file sexual harassment and retaliation charges with the EEOC regardless of use the new tip-line.

  • EEOC Training

The Act also would require the EEOC to “provide for the development and dissemination of work-place training programs and information” regarding workplace harassment and sexual harassment. The new training would cover actions that constitute workplace harassment, the rights of individuals and how to report harassment, how bystanders can intervene or report witnessed harassment in the workplace, and methods of prevention for employers and managers.


The EMPOWER Act is a direct reaction to the #MeToo movement.  Notably, reporting on the Harvey Weinstein scandal and the subsequent flood of revelations demonstrated how some employers have used nondisclosure and nondisparagement agreements to conceal inappropriate behaviors. These legal limitations prevented employees from speaking out and allowed hostile work environments to fly under the radar for extend periods. The Act mirrors several state laws that have banned nondisclosure agreements, such as California, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington.

Employers should monitor the progress of the EMPOWER Act.  While it not clear whether the proposed legislation will pass, it does have bipartisan support as well as the support of the general public.  Similar bipartisan legislation was proposed in the Senate in June, but it has not had any traction and will likely be delayed due to the U.S. Supreme Court nomination process.

This article was written by Zeth D. Hearld, who is an employment attorney with Kitch Drutchas Wagner Valitutti & Sherbrook. He can be reached at or at (313) 965-7846.

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. July 2018.

SHRM Learning Center: Advance your career with SHRM-CP or SHRM-SCP certification

By: Eastern Michigan University

Advance your career with SHRM-CP or SHRM-SCP certification

Take Your Career to the Next Level

If you’re ready to advance your career in human resources, then the nation’s #1 certification prep tool, the SHRM Learning System®, can help you reach your goals. Whatever your learning style, you’ll find ways to test your knowledge and build your confidence as you prepare for the SHRM-CP or SHRM-SCP exams.

Who Should Take These Courses?

  • The Learning System can be used by: HR professionals planning to take the SHRM-CP or SCP certification exam
  • Certified HR professionals seeking recertification credits
  •  HR professionals seeking additional professional development for their career

What Does This System cover?

The SHRM Learning System includes modules covering each of the areas identified in SHRM’s HR Competency Model, so you’ll be fully prepared for the SHRM-CP or SHRM-SCP exam.

  1.  Human Resource Expertise
  2. Relationship Management
  3. Consultation
  4. Leadership and Navigation
  5. Communication
  6. Global and Cultural Effectiveness
  7. Ethical Practices
  8. Critical Evaluation
  9. Business Acumen

These competencies can be used as a guide for your own career and professional development or help in developing employees you work with. It can also provide a guide for those considering HR as a career path, giving them a clear idea about what it takes to be successful.

Flexibility for Working Professionals

This program is taught through a blended approach as you learn from workbooks, online tools and in the classroom one evening a week for twelve weeks. Classes are taught in several southeast Michigan locations and may vary each year.


Livonia: Mondays, September 17 – December 3

Lansing: Tuesdays, September 18 – December 4

Troy: Wednesdays, September 19 – December 5

Ann Arbor: Thursdays, September 20 – December 6

Program Fee

$1,200 includes all course materials

Certification Testing

SHRM requires HR professionals sitting for the exams to have a combination of demonstrated work experience and education. You’re responsible for ensuring your eligibility for the exam.

Visit for more information.

This program is offered in partnership with The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), Detroit SHRM, The Greater Ann Arbor Society for Human Resource Management and the Greater Lansing SHRM.

For More Information

Professional Programs and Training

Eastern Michigan University, Engage@EMU

203 Boone Hall, Ypsilanti, MI 48197

734.487.9045 |

Register at aining/

 profe ssional -deve lopment/hr _tr aining/

Cedar Point: Christmas in July Sale!

By: Cedar Point

Enjoy the summer fun now with Cedar Point’s Christmas in July Sale! Summer admission tickets are 50% off AND will be valid until Labor Day!

Tickets will be on sale at 5:00 PM on Tuesday, July 24 – 9:00 AM on Friday, July 27, 2018

CLICK HERE for a poster to share with others.

Check out your affiliate store for savings throughout the whole year!


User Name: CPDSHRM
Password: dshrm

Thank you for participating in Cedar Point’s Affiliate Sales Program!

Cedar Point Group Sales
800-448-2428 option 1