 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
Media Coverage of Our Cases
Deborah Gordon listed in Detroit Business
'Top Lawyers' in metro Detroit - 2010Deborah Gordon - Selected as a Leader in the Law
by The Michigan Lawyers Weekly for 2009Deborah Gordon Rated as one of the "TOP 10" LAWYERS IN MICHICAN
Ratings by Super Lawyers
Click here to read Super Lawyers featuring Deborah GordonDeborah was named as one of the top ten lawyers in Michigan in the Super Lawyers publications of September, 2006 and 2007.
Listed as One of the Most Influential Women in Michigan by
Crain's Detroit BusinessTV Interviews & News Videos
November 18, 2009 - Suing: Ex-WCSX DJ Lynne Woodison
June 15, 2009 - Couple Suing Former Prosecutor, Others
Click Here to ViewApril 30, 2009 - Waterford settles harassment claim with former police clerk
Click Here to ViewApril 28, 2009 - Reeves Padding Public Payroll?
Click Here to ViewMarch 24, 2006 - GM Layoffs
Click Here to ViewGM to Absorb Chrysler?
Click Here to ViewRadio Interviews
July 16, 2009
Deborah Gordon interview with Dick Purtan
Topic: $100,000,000 Paid To Settle Prisoner Sex-Abuse Case
WOMC
Click Here to ListenSeptember 26, 2007
Should a boy play on a girls sports team?
WJR Radio
Click Here to ListenApril 10, 2007
Workplace Terminations
Clear Channel Broadcasting, Channel 955
Click Here to Listen2010 Media Coverage
Clawson school worker fired for reports
November 27, 2009 - Click Here for Story2009 Media Coverage
City stalling in pregnancy bias lawsuit, lawyer says
November 27, 2009 - Click Here for StoryEx-WCSX DJ sues, says she was harassed
November 18, 2009 - Click Here for StoryBloomfield Hills lawyer takes on the big dogs -- and wins
November 8, 2009 - Click Here for Story'U' settles case with former Dental School student
November 1, 2009 - Click Here for StoryAve Maria Law in Toilet-Tier Rankings, Again. How?
October 9, 2009 - Click Here for StoryLetterman's behavior nothing to laugh at
October 3, 2009 - Click Here for StoryFormer therapist at center files sexual harassment suit against CEO
September 29, 2009 - Click Here for StoryFired Ave Maria Law Prof Gets Tenure in Whistle-Blower Settlement, Lawyer Says
September 21, 2009 - Click Here for StorySafranek Wins Settlement from Ave Maria and Monaghan
September 21, 2009 - Click Here for StoryFormer principal accused of sexual harassment
September 15, 2009 - Click Here for StoryFormer court administrator sues district judge
September 5, 2009 - Click Here for StoryWoman gets $1.1-million verdict
August 26, 2009 - Click Here for StoryJury awards former animal control officer $1M in civil suit
August 19, 2009 - Click Here for StoryWisconsin high court finds religious school exempt from anti-discrimination laws
July 9, 2009 - Click Here for StoryTwo Law Profs Settle Whistle-blower Suit Against Ave Maria
July 9, 2009 - Click Here for StoryTurning the Tables
Parents accused of abusing daughter target prosecutor who brought case
July 9, 2009 - Click Here for StoryAve Maria claims 'ecclesiastical abstention' over termination of three law professors
July 9, 2009 - Click Here for StoryJournalism school head hasn't resigned
Asked to step down, professor in talks with MSU about role
July 8, 2009 - Click Here for StoryCourt orders Tom Monaghan to turn over notes in Ave Maria Law School lawsuit
June 18, 2009 - Click Here for StoryCouple Suing Former Prosecutor, Others
June 15, 2009 - Click Here for StoryCouple alleges false imprisonment in sex assault case involving teen daughter
June 14, 2009 - Click Here for StoryCouple sue Keego Harbor over public boat ramp
May 7, 2009 - Click Here for StoryKeego Harbor couple accuses officials of harassment
May 6, 2009 - Click Here for StoryMonaghan's money will follow Ave Maria law school move to North Naples
April 30, 2009 - Click Here for StoryAve Maria law school spends more than $1 million in legal fees last year
April 30, 2009 - Click Here for StoryWaterford settles harassment claim with former police clerk
April 30, 2009 - Click Here for StoryPay Equity Day is a reminder for women to get fair share
April 28, 2009 - Click Here for StoryFormer staffer sues Martha Reeves for wrongful dismissal
April 27, 2009 - Click Here for StoryWaterford settles sexual harassment suit
April 22, 2009 - Click Here for StoryUniversity will pay legal fees of former dental student
March 17, 2009 - Click Here for StoryFormer officer files federal suit against city, police
February 25, 2009 - Click Here for StoryFired police officer settles suit with city
February 10, 2009 - Click Here for StoryJudges seal Monaghan's candid notes
January 14, 2009 - Click Here for StoryARCHIVES | 2007, 2008 & 2009 Media Coverage - Click here
Suit: Clawson school worker fired for reports
Clawson aide says principal took no action on allegationsBy Mike Martindale
February 18. 2010Clawson -- A special education worker at a Clawson grade school has filed a lawsuit alleging she was fired because she reported violations at school including a third-grade drug dealer and a teacher who sexually harassed a female colleague.
Janine Fisher-Ethier's lawsuit, assigned to Oakland Circuit Judge Leo Bowman, names Clawson Public Schools, Patricia Pell and Scott Just as defendants. Pell is the principal of Schalm Elementary School, where Just is employed as a teacher.
Fisher-Ethier says she was hired by Clawson Public Schools in January 2007 as a special education paraprofessional, but troubles began in April 2008 when she reported to a latchkey supervisor at the school that a third-grade student was selling amphetamine pills to other students on school property.
On May 8, 2008, the same third-grader drew a picture and wrote that he was going to kill a specific classmate, and Fisher-Ethier turned the material over to Pell, said Fisher-Ethier's attorney, Deborah Gordon.
"Nothing was done about the incident but the targeted student's parents heard about it from other students and contacted police, who contacted Fisher-Ethier, who answered questions honestly," said Gordon.
"This was apparently viewed as more bad publicity."
In February 2009, Fisher-Ethier and other Schalm staff encouraged a female teacher who had allegedly been sexually harassed by another teacher to report the matter to Pell. It was later determined Pell never reported the allegation to the superintendent as required by policy, Gordon said.
"In November, Scott Just told Pell my client had instructed two students to 'haul a special education student down the hallway by his hands' -- something that never happened," Gordon said.
A union official told Fisher-Ethier on Nov. 15 the school intended to file disciplinary charges based on the false allegations unless she resigned. The same day, Fisher-Ethier e-mailed all board members with the violations she had previously reported and learned the board had never been made aware of the allegations, Gordon said.
On Nov. 19, Fisher-Ethier was told her employment was terminated immediately. Gordon said it is a violation of her right of due process.
Neither Pell nor Just could be reached for comment Wednesday, and the school is closed for the week, an employee said.
"We are unaware of the lawsuit or claims and until we are served have nothing to say about it," said Clawson School Superintendent Cheryl Rogers.
City stalling in pregnancy bias lawsuit, lawyer says
November 27, 2009
The lawyer for six Detroit police officers who are suing the city over alleged pregnancy discrimination is accusing the city of foot-dragging and dishonesty in responding to the federal court action. about: Detroit Detroit police Law Law Crime Law Enforcement lawyer Organizations Police Associations Police officer.
Read This Article
Ex-WCSX DJ sues, says she was harassed
By Paul Egan
November 18, 2009The former co-host of the "JJ and Lynne" morning show on WCSX-FM (94.7) filed a federal lawsuit against the classic rock station's owners Tuesday, alleging she was sexually harassed by her co-host James Johnson and retaliated against when she complained about that and the fact he was paid more.
According to the complaint, Lynne Woodison Lyman joined WCSX in 1997 and co-hosted with JJ from 2000 until November 2008, when the station cited low ratings in terminating the show.
"Plaintiff was surrounded by a discriminatory and unlawful work environment where women were described as sex objects and derided on a daily basis," Lyman alleges in the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Detroit by her attorney, Deborah Gordon of Bloomfield Hills.
"Plaintiff's co-host showed her nude photographs on his computer screen on a daily basis and would harass her with derogatory terms and sexual references while they were broadcasting on the air."
Johnson, who is not a defendant in the lawsuit, did not respond to an e-mail message sent to his Facebook page. The only named defendant in the suit is station owner Greater Media Inc., also known as Greater Boston Radio Inc. John Gallagher, market manager for WCSX in Ferndale and two other Detroit-area Greater Media stations, said Tuesday he had not yet seen the lawsuit and could not comment.
Lyman alleges managers labeled her a "b----" when she complained about the hostile work environment and also retaliated against her for complaining in 2006 about Johnson receiving an annual "management development bonus" of about $24,000 that she did not receive.
Johnson was paid more despite the fact she did more work and received better performance appraisals, Lyman alleges.
"Plaintiff's co-host, James Johnson, was regularly given warnings, negative write-ups, and negative reviews," the suit alleges. "Mr. Johnson was also threatened with a lawsuit for his inappropriate behavior in grabbing a female employee at a Greektown Casino event in or about 2003, for which he was never disciplined."
Lyman, 58, alleges gender and age discrimination and retaliation. Gordon said Lyman is not currently working in radio and she is seeking damages in excess of $1 million. "They really wrecked her career," Gordon said.
The case is assigned to U.S. District Judge Paul D. Borman.
Bloomfield Hills lawyer takes on the big dogs -- and wins
By L.L. BRASIER
November 8, 2009It might be said that attorney Deborah Gordon has an issue with authority figures.
She sues them all the time.
And most of the time she wins -- big.
Gordon, 59, of Birmingham is widely viewed as the best attorney around when it comes to taking on normally lawsuit-proof entities such as courts, police departments and county prosecutors.
Michigan's governmental immunity laws generally protect such parties. But Gordon, described by friends and foes as ferocious in the courtroom, successfully has sued police departments in Sterling Heights, Waterford and Sylvan Lake, and even pizza mogul Tom Monaghan.
She once even dragged all three Bloomfield District Court judges onto the witness stand and interrogated them, earning her client a $3-million jury award in a wrongful-discharge lawsuit.
Perhaps it's no surprise that Gordon is not afraid to take on authority, considering her lineage.
She is the daughter of Lou Gordon, the feisty host of a Channel 50 interview show in the '60s and '70s. Lou Gordon was beloved for sticking up for the little people.
Currently in Deborah Gordon's sights: Detroit City Councilwoman Martha Reeves, facing a wrongful discharge suit from an office worker; and former Oakland County Prosecutor David Gorcyca, along with West Bloomfield police, who are accused of the wrongful imprisonment of a West Bloomfield Township couple -- Julian and Thal Wendrow -- who were accused of abusing their autistic daughter.
The Wendrow case fell apart and the charges were dropped, but not before the girl's father spent 80 days in jail. A trial is planned next year.
"Sometimes these people with all this power have to learn to behave," Gordon said. "And sometimes they have to know when to say, 'Sorry, we made a mistake.' "
Lawyer helps clients win tough disputes with governments
People who meet Gordon for the first time after arriving in her Bloomfield Hills law offices sometimes seem surprised.
"You sounded taller on the phone," clients will often say.
At 5 feet 2, and not much more than 100 pounds, she seems unimposing.
But, turned loose in a courtroom, Deborah Gordon is anything but diminutive.
A ferocious and feared litigator, Gordon is arguably metro Detroit's premiere attorney when it comes to suing in cases of wrongful discharge and civil rights violations. And she is an expert in one of the trickiest areas of Michigan law -- overcoming governmental immunity issues that often stop citizens from suing rogue police departments, run-amok prosecutors and incompetent or vindictive local governments.
Such cases are notoriously difficult to win. Michigan laws give broad governmental immunity to law enforcement and other public officials, an acknowledgement by legislators that such agencies need wide discretion in how they handle cases. Those suing must prove that public officials were acting without regard to their constitutional rights or welfare, a tough sale in some courtrooms, legal experts say. Roughly two-thirds are dismissed before ever reaching trial.
But in her 30 years of practice, Gordon has taken on -- and almost always triumphed over -- some of metro Detroit's most powerful players, including sitting judges, chief executive officers, politicians, police departments and prosecutors. Among her targets: Pizza mogul Tom Monaghan, the Sterling Heights and Waterford police departments, the University of Michigan's Dental School and the entire three-judge bench of the 48th District Court in Bloomfield Township.
"The idea of going after things that are wrong, and unjust and egomaniacal, and having the ability to do something about it, it's just a phenomenal feeling," she said in her bright and cluttered office, decorated with photos and sketches of past courtroom battles and political signs -- she is a big Obama supporter.
Despite her high-octane personality, her full caseload and the drudgery of preparing for seemingly endless trial work, she is a contented lawyer in a field often filled with stressed-out and unhappy people.
"I am so grateful, so fortunate," she said, her feet tucked up on her crowded desk. "I love what I do, I take only the cases I want, the cases where I think I can bring my clients, and myself, some satisfaction."
Gordon's practice is so rarefied that she turns down almost every case presented to her, selecting only the ones that she is certain she can win. At any given time, she has 30 to 35 active cases, and a staff of three attorneys.
She also takes cases only on contingency -- meaning she never charges by the hour. Her pay comes from her cut of verdict awards, typically a third. Should she lose? She gets nothing.
"It gives me a lot more freedom," she said. "I don't want anybody to pay me by the hour."
Sexual harassment victories
Gordon's latest victory was a $1.1-million verdict against the Sterling Heights Police Department earlier this year. Gordon represented an animal control officer who claimed she was fired in retaliation for complaining to her bosses that a fellow employee was harassing her.
A Macomb County jury agreed.
Attorney Lawrence Scott, who represented Sterling Heights, declined to discuss the case, citing potential appeals. But he was quick to praise and lament Gordon as a foe.
"She is very aggressive, and she is effective," Scott said.
He said he thought his clients were sometimes manhandled by Gordon on the witness stand.
In 2003, Gordon represented four women employed by Tri-Chem, a Troy firm, who alleged that as saleswomen, they were required to send prospective customers photos of themselves seminude and to make sexually suggestive remarks during their sales pitches. It was settled out of court for an undisclosed amount.
"It would have been an incredible case to try," Gordon said. "We have this saying around the office: Just when we think we've seen it all, along comes something like that."
Then there was the Sylvan Lake police officer who was fired after complaining that the chief was making inappropriate sexual remarks to him. Gordon, in taking depositions, introduced a resident of the Oakland County city who also testified that the chief, who was married, showed up on his doorstep during a routine call, and commented on the size of the resident's genitalia.
The case settled for $300,000.
Lou Gordon's legacy
Gordon has crusading in her DNA. Her father, Lou Gordon, was a hugely popular, muck-raking broadcast journalist in Detroit in the 1960s and 1970s. He once called out Bob Hope about his support of Richard Nixon during the Vietnam War, and in interviewing Alabama Gov. George Wallace, openly questioned his sanity.
His impact on Deborah, the middle daughter of three, was profound.
Her mother, ill, lived in another state, so it was up to her father to raise his daughters. He taught them to question authority from the time they could talk. And he taught them the fine art of debate.
"We were a Jewish family, so we grew up arguing all the time," she recalled. "And then, five minutes later, it was like, 'Hey, let's go shopping at Northland.' "
She was political, following the civil rights movement on the family's black-and-white TV set even as a child.
She trained to be a teacher and graduated from U-M with a teaching certificate. But in her first year of teaching, she heard about a woman in law school and was intrigued.
"We were teachers, or nurses, or we got married. But women didn't go to law school then," she said.
It was in the law that she found her passion.
Today she practices mostly in federal court, and in state courts in Wayne, Oakland and Macomb counties.
Avern Cohn, a longtime judge on Michigan's federal court bench in Detroit, has watched Gordon over the years. She has had many cases before him.
"She is like this skilled surgeon," Cohn said. "She knows how to get the best out of the case. Many of her victories are scored because of the obtuseness of the defendant, and their failure to recognize the shortcomings of their case.
"A lot of people have really misbehaved, and refuse to recognize it," Cohn said. "She has a good nose for discriminatory conduct. She doesn't lose a good case, and most of her cases are scored because of the foolishness of the defendants going to trial."
That, and sheer perseverance.
"I'm always impressed by her. It's a very specialized law, and she is one of the premiere attorneys in that area of law," Oakland County Circuit Judge Colleen O'Brien said. "She is a bulldog."
'U' settles case with former Dental School student
By Kyle Swanson
November 1, 2009University officials have settled out of court with a former Dental School student who says she was wrongfully dismissed from the school.
A settlement was reached outside of court last week after University officials dropped an appeal of a ruling that ordered the University to pay the former student more than $1.7 million. The amount of the settlement has not been disclosed.
In May 2006, Alissa Zwick, a former Dental School student, filed two lawsuits against the University after being dismissed from the University in her third year of study. Zwick claimed she had been caught in a turf war between a Dental School administrator and several faculty members over how to accommodate her attention deficit disorder.
The associate dean of the Dental School told Zwick she was expelled from the Dental School because she wasn't fit to practice dentistry. At the time of her expulsion, Zwick had a B average.
Zwick's lawsuits claimed her expulsion was a violation of free speech, due process, breach of contract and defamation. The cases, filed in the Washtenaw County Circuit Court and the Michigan Court of Claims, were consolidated and sent to a U.S. District Court for judgment.
After the University filed a motion to have the case dismissed, all claims were dropped except Zwick's due process claim.
The case went to trial in federal court and in December 2008 the jury awarded Zwick $220,000 in economic damages, $500,000 in non-economic damages and $1 million in punitive damages. The University was also ordered to pay approximately $320,000 for Zwick's legal expenses.
The University began an appeal after the verdict was issued, which was dropped as a result of last week's settlement. As part of the settlement, both parties are asking the court to erase the earlier verdict in favor of the settlement agreement.
University spokesman Rick Fitzgerald confirmed that the appeal had been dropped and that a settlement had been reached.
"The matter has been resolved and the earlier court judgment has been vacated," Fitzgerald said.
Fitzgerald refused further comment, saying he wasn't permitted to comment on the details of the settlement or any other specifics of the case.
Deborah Gordon, Zwick's attorney, told the Associated Press Friday that she was not allowed to comment on the details of the settlement.
"I am only allowed to say the case has been resolved," Gordon said.
Details of the settlement have not yet been filed with the Court.
Zwick no longer studies dentistry, despite having been accepted to eight other dental schools before enrolling at Michigan. She is now pursuing a master's degree in Speech Pathology at Eastern Michigan University.
Ave Maria Law in Toilet-Tier Rankings, Again. How?
October 9, 2009
Yesterday, Fumare shared an Ave Maria School of Law alumni email that summarizes AMSL's place in the 2009 U.S. News ranking of law schools.
- peer assessment: 1.3 out of 5 (same as 2008)
- lawyer/judge assessment: 1.9 out of 5 (down from 2.1)
- GPA and LSAT percentile scores: all down from 2008
- student acceptance rate: got worse
- student/faculty ratio: got worse
- Michigan bar passage rate: decreased sharply from 96.3% to 75%
The Alumni Association Board of Directors – who apparently sent the email – goes on to remind people that these numbers were taken prior to relocation to Florida, as if the move will help with GPA, LSAT, student/faculty ratio, or any other metric.
Rather than put hope in relocation, the Alumni Board should also realize that these metrics do not reflect the fallout from the wrongful termination settlement that was recently won by three former AMSL professors. A review of the AveWatch server log makes one wonder if any law school in America does not know that AMSL reversed all of its punitive tenure decisions against the professors.
The academic legal community also knows what Ave Maria Law is, thanks largely to the evidence uncovered in the suit. The University of Chicago's Brian Leiter summed it up best by calling the settlement "a suitable rebuke to the nutty Tom Monaghan and former Dean Dobranski, who did his bidding."
"Nutty"
With over three years of articles, AveWatch had to create a whole category devoted to "nutty". Who wants to pay $33K/year to have a diploma from a fourth-tier school with an administration deemed "nutty" by its legal peers (Catholic or otherwise)?
AveWatch asked several observers to comment on what the lawsuit's findings and settlement mean. What can be learned from this?:
Charles Rice (Professor Emeritus, Notre Dame Law School; Co-Founder and Gubernator Ejectus, AMSL):
Three causes:
1) A free-standing law school is required to be run by its governing board, with decisions made in the interest of the school. Tom Monaghan subordinated the interests of AMSL, and all those who relied on him and his promises, to his separate business interests. If he developed a university organically in Florida, AMSL could easily have phased in with it pursuant to the program laid out by Joe Falvey. We could have ended up with two excellent law schools, one in Florida and one in Ann Arbor. TSM had no adequate appreciation for the quality and potential of AMSL. When he came up with his fantasy vision of the "Catholic town with university" and insisted that AMSL jump-start it by moving lock, stock and barrel to the suburbs of Immokalee, he destabilized AMSL in his pursuit of that fantasy. With the concurrence of Dobranski and the Board, TSM ran AMSL as a sole proprietorship to serve his own ends.
2) Bernie Dobranski at first tried to restrain Tom Monaghan's interference with the operation of the school. But when Tom insisted on the instant move of AMSL to jump-start his university, Bernie flipped and became the obedient resident agent of the sole proprietor, Monaghan. Bernie's actions disintegrated into a pattern of arbitrary treatment and meanness toward those who disagreed, especially faculty. His treatment of Safranek, Puccillo and Lyons is beyond contempt and beyond my power to describe. But Monaghan and the compliant Board members share in the responsibility for it.
3) Most important, the Board, with very few exceptions (most notably Jim Ryan) abjectly failed in its fiduciary duty to be a governing board. They appeared, wrongly, to regard AMSL as "Tom's law school" because they saw Tom as the money man. The attitude of the Board was one of automatic submission to TSM and his resident agent, Bernie. The result was a betrayal of the Board's fiduciary duty to AMSL and its community. The Board members were honorable, pleasant and obviously competent people. But as a group, the Board was sycophantic toward Tom and Bernie, and essentially worthless. The result was to waste a great opportunity. Serving on that Board was a disgusting experience. On the other hand, in my opinion, if Jim Ryan had been chairman of the Board and Joe Falvey the Dean, AMSL, even with the same Board members, would have succeeded beyond the most optimistic expectations. The problem was essentially one of leadership.
A former Ave Maria professor:
In the end, it could be that the sole purpose of Ave Maria is to serve as a warning to others who think that a legal academic community can or should be used by a wealthy sole proprietor to bolster his other non-profit and for-profit business ventures. AMSL was a train wreck on the career and future of many bright, hard working, faithful Catholic legal professionals. The Governors should be ashamed of their docile tolerance of institutional problems. They failed to heed the warning of St. John Chrysostom who said that "unreasonable patience is the hotbed of many vices, it fosters negligence, and incites not only the wicked but the good to do wrong".
A former Ave Maria Professor:
The Ave Enterprises have lied to, tried to hurt, or attempted to destroy so many people including Charlie Rice, Janet Smith, John Hittinger, as well as Safranek, Pucillo and Lyons and literally hundreds of students. Both St. Thomas and Aristotle help us to know that bad actions may not spring from bad character. However, when actions are regular and flow naturally from people, we recognize that they flow from habits and character. Ave Enterprises exhibit a certain character that is based upon the character of its leaders. Even bad characters though do good things.
However, Ave Maria is an entity that is meant to have a life projecting out for generations. It seeks students, donors, faculty and staff who will entrust their work and their future to Ave Maria and its promise. Whether or not it will fulfill that promise is based upon its character.
All of these people, Rice, Smith, Hittinger, Safranek, Pucillo and Lyons as well as hundreds of harmed careers and destroyed futures for alumni show that the Ave Enterprises are the Catholic Academic Bernard Madoff.
Deborah Gordon (legal team representing Safranke, Pucillo, and Lyons):
This case was truly unique. First, the arrogance of Monaghan and Dobranski, both during the events themselves and later at deposition was astounding. Monaghan had a quiet but very determined arrogance, Dobranski was more aggressive. Both saw things only from their point of view and seemed incapable of realizing they had made many mistakes. In my opinion, both were very thin skinned and could not deal criticism of any kind. Neither hesitated to refer to those who disagreed with them as "dissidents", and did so proudly.While I am used to cynicism and dishonesty in my cases it was particularly galling to see that with defendants who hold themselves out as being devoted to religious principles. It quickly became obvious that in their minds the ends justified the means… the truth and morality be damned.
I was shocked that a religious school would have on board the likes of Father Orsi. More evidence that the criteria for employment is not the quality of the individual but how often he says "yes". Similarly, the fact that people of the stature, intellect and integrity of Rice and Falvey were disposed of said it all with regard to the kind of institution this was. The other surprise was how truly hands off the BOG was.
Finally, what was great was our clients. All were very helpful with the case, totally committed to seeing justice be done and had great senses of humor.
In addition, this was a complete and total victory. Our team could think of nothing our clients could get at trial they did not obtain with this settlement. Yes, a trial would have been extremely revealing and would shed more public light on the claims. But our clients could not have had tenure restored, and their names and records cleared with a trial – we had no way of obtaining injunctive relief. So, the settlement provided the opportunity to correct an injustice by reversing all of the laughable and illegal wrongs that were done, in addition to the monetary relief. It was very important to us to have the AMSL Board set the record straight. I felt the evidence in this case was overwhelming and would not have hesitated to go to trial if I thought the result would have been better.
Every time that Monaghan, Dobranski, and Dean Eugene Milhizer brag that AMSL initially achieved accreditation in "the fastest possible time", they only heap coals upon themselves… and should be reminded that the school's fall under their mismanagement was even faster.
Letterman's behavior nothing to laugh at
By PATRICIA MONTEMURRI
October 3, 2009David Letterman crossed a line he shouldn't have, and it isn't funny.
The TV audience laughed after Letterman, with rubber-faced expression, admitted he "had sex with women who work for me on the show."
"My response to that is, 'Yes, I have,' " deadpanned Letterman.
The audience even clapped.
But let's stop laughing.
Some may say the rules of professionalism are different in the entertainment industry, where costars frequently fall in love with their on-screen mates or the folks behind the camera, but that excuse doesn't cut it here.
Letterman is the chairman and the man who owns the company that produces his show. He's a boss. And bosses are asking for bottom-line trouble when they have sex with their subordinates.
These unnamed employees worked "for" Letterman, not just "with" him.
It's creepy -- a word Letterman himself used with disturbing effect as he described the extortion plot hatched against him -- when bosses bed their employees. After Letterman testified about the blackmail attempt to a New York grand jury, a CBS employee was arrested and charged this week with attempting to extort $2 million from the comedian. He pleaded not guilty.
Business undermined
Even if Letterman had consensual relationships with subordinates, his behavior raises several issues.
Whether he's a celebrity or not, it remains a situation in which a person has a powerful position over somebody at the workplace and raises the question of whether that position is being leveraged for sex.
Deborah Gordon, a local attorney who specializes in sex discrimination and harassment cases, was stunned by Letterman's on-screen demeanor.
"He makes light of it -- like what's the thing that I've done that is so creepy? I had sex with women who work for me. Ha. Ha. Ha. No big deal," Gordon said.
The fact that Letterman admitted he had sex with multiple women in the workplace "sends up a warning signal," Gordon said. It suggests a pattern of behavior and hints of a workplace where such affairs with the boss might be part of the expected job duties.
It undermines the whole operation. It raises questions of whether women at Letterman's office are being hired with sex in mind, and if there are repercussions for refusing an advance or after an affair has run its course.
At press time, no women had come forward claiming they suffered sexual harassment from Letterman. And legal experts say sexual advances have to be unwelcome to support a lawsuit. But having sex with subordinates is grounds for dismissal in corporate America, and there are bountiful reasons why companies harp on management to keep sexual affairs out of the office.
Consider this: When an employee brought a sexual harassment suit against Isiah Thomas, the former Detroit Pistons basketball star who was an executive with the New York Knicks, a New York jury returned an $11.6-million verdict against the Knicks' parent organization.
Arrogance on display
Letterman's viewers are programmed to laugh at what he says.
But in his attempt at humor, Gordon saw the spin.
"There is a lot of arrogance in these situations, and he seemed to have a very arrogant attitude -- like naturally I have sex with anybody in the job, like who doesn't," Gordon said. "That I found very offensive."
The owner of Worldwide Pants Inc. got caught with his pants down, and it's going to haunt him personally and professionally for some time to come.
Former therapist at center files sexual harassment suit against CEO
By ANN ZANIEWSKI
Of The Oakland Press
September 29, 2009A therapist who worked at a local counseling center is accusing its chief executive officer of sexual harassment.
The 35-year-old Oakland County resident alleges in a circuit court lawsuit that William B. Thompson, the CEO of Perfect Solutions Inc. in Waterford Township, repeatedly made suggestive comments and touched her inappropriately.
"It's really outrageous what this guy put her through," said Carol Laughbaum, the woman's attorney.
Thompson's attorney, Frederick D. Elias, called the allegations frivolous.
"We are vigorously defending against the lawsuit. Part of the lawsuit has already been dismissed by the court," he said, referring to a fraud count. "We believe that a dismissal of the rest of it will follow."
The woman began working in August 2006 at Perfect Solutions, an outpatient therapy clinic that provides substance abuse and mental health treatment.
She alleges that Thompson began inappropriately hugging her in January 2007. The complaint says Thompson gave her lingerie and other unwanted gifts, told her he was sexually attracted to her, and repeatedly hugged her and attempted to kiss her.
She objected to the advances to no avail, Laughbaum said.
"She was the breadwinner in her family. She's got two little children. She was really dependent on this income. She wanted to believe that, ‘I'll just set some boundaries with this guy and he'll let me do this job' ... He essentially wouldn't take no for an answer," Laughbaum said.
Laughbaum said a female client told the woman that Thompson also inappropriately touched her. The lawsuit says that some of the center's clients, in addition to having histories of substance abuse, have histories of sexual abuse.
According to the lawsuit, the woman learned in August 2008 through state police records that Thompson pleaded guilty in 1989 to a felony criminal sexual conduct charge. She resigned the following month and has since opened her own counseling center.
The lawsuit was filed last year but was recently amended. It alleges sexual harassment and assault and battery. It also accuses Thompson of false imprisonment because of an occasion in which the woman tried to leave his office, but he reportedly blocked the door, pushed it shut and then hugged her.
The woman is seeking a jury trial and unspecified monetary damages. She asked that her name not appear in print.
Unless the parties reach a settlement, the case will go to trial in December before Oakland Circuit Judge John McDonald.
Safranek Wins Settlement from Ave Maria and Monaghan
By Martha Neil
September 21, 2009A much-watched whistle-blower lawsuit by three former faculty members at Ave Maria School of Law is now concluded without ever having the central legal issue publicly addressed.
A settlement by Stephen Safranek ends the Michigan state-court case, since the two other plaintiffs settled earlier this year according to the Naples Daily News.
Attorney Deborah Gordon, who represents Safranek, tells the newspaper his tenure was restored under the settlement, which included an unspecified amount of money.
The law school declined to comment.
The litigation filed by the three in 2007 asserted claims of wrongful discharge, breach of contract and tortious interference with advantagious business relationships. Observers were waiting to see what the court made of a constitutional issue in the Washtenaw County Circuit Court case—whether, as a religious institution, Ave Maria could successfully claim a ministerial exception to workplace standards that would apply in a secular setting, the newspaper notes.
The professors had contended in their complaint that they were fired after they "reported or were about to report violations or suspected violations of state and federal laws, regulations, and rules governing the independence of the corporate form and breach (of) fiduciary duty/conflict of interest" to the state attorney general, unspecified law enforcement agencies and the American Bar Association.
Dean Bernard Dobranski told the ABA Journal in 2007 that "a small group of disgruntled faculty members who don't want to see the law school relocate" had magnified academic freedom and governance issues.
Ave Maria at that time was located in Michigan but has since moved to Florida.
Safranek Wins Settlement from Ave Maria and Monaghan
September 21, 2009
UPDATE, 9/22/09 - Hat tip to Brian Leiter at the University of Chicago: "It looks to me like a complete vindication of Safranek and the others, and a suitable rebuke to the nutty Tom Monaghan and former Dean Dobranski, who did his bidding." ABA Journal, Law School Headlines, and USLaw also picked-up the story. Hat tip to Mirror of Justice who called it a "partial denouement of the travesty at Ave Maria Law School".
Original AveWatch Article (9/21/09):
Detroit attorney Deborah Gordon announced today that former Ave Maria School of Law professor Stephen Safranek accepted a settlement offer in his October 2007 wrongful termination suit against Tom Monaghan, the Ave Maria Foundation, the Law School, and Bernard Dobranski (the recently-resigned AMSL Dean and President). The Law School's Board of Governors will rescind its earlier revocation of Professor Safranek's tenure; further, the Board will rescind the preceding suspension and all censures imposed by then-Dean Dobranski. (excerpt):
Professors Safranek, Lyons and Pucillo are extremely pleased with the settlement and the fact that this matter has been resolved. Although none of the three will return to Ave Maria and are engaged in other professional endeavors, they greatly appreciate the overwhelming support extended to them by the Ave Maria community of students, alumni, staff, and faculty.
The financial aspects of the settlement are not being disclosed.
The offer to settle with Safranek, accompanied by the complete reversal of all disciplinary actions against him, is another significant blow to the reputation of Tom Monaghan's management in the area of Catholic higher education. In July, Ave Maria settled with Edward Lyons and Phillip Pucillo, the other two law school professors who also filed wrongful termination suits. The original legal complaint said (excerpt):
"The three professors claim that they were removed from their positions in retaliation for their having reported illegal conduct by Monaghan and Dobranski to law enforcement and other governmental agencies, and for refusing to go along with Monaghan's attempts to improperly control the Board by permitting his private, conflicting interests to supersede the best interests of the law school…"
Pressure had been mounting on Ave Maria since June when the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that Monaghan must turn over his personal notes as part of discovery… something that the law professors' legal team had been trying to secure since March 2008. Earlier efforts to examine a subset of notes found that Monaghan wrote:
November 4 Goals
5 down, 6 to go. 2 leaders gone. Now they are in the minority.The professors' legal team interpreted this to be part of a "plan of unlawful retaliation" by Monaghan, where he sought to remove the 11 (5+6) faculty who voted "no confidence" in his administration. It was anticipated that the acquisition of additional notes would yield even more evidence in the wrongful termination case.
Seemingly desperate to avoid trial and subsequent exposure of the notes, Monaghan's lawyers overplayed their hand in June by filing a motion for summary disposition claiming that Ave Maria School of Law was a ministry populated by ministers (the law professors); as such, Monaghan contended that the employment contracts of his ministers were beyond the jursidiction of civil court. This wild assertion was widely discussed, from National Law Journal (Law.com) to a Canon lawyer blog. Judge Melinda Morris was scheduled to decide on the motion by July 15, but that ruling was stalled, presumably for the settlement negotiations.
The irony is thick.
In 2004, AMSL Dean Bernard Dobranski suggested Deborah Gordon as a "good labor lawyer" to Ave Maria College professors who were considering legal action against Monaghan and the Michigan liberal arts school. Today, as lead attorney for the fired Ave Maria School of Law professors, Gordon successfully pursued wrongful termination claims against both Dobranski and Monaghan.
The real cost of this litigation for Ave Maria cannot be counted simply in dollars, although Monaghan and the Law School reportedly spent a "mindboggling" amount in an attempt to avoid a jury trial prior to the settlement (the equivalent of hiring "a $500-an-hour attorney to work more than 11 months straight, assuming a 40-hour week" in 2008 alone, according to Naples Daily News). The deposition testimony and documentation generated from this suit exposed a damning view of Ave Maria's tangled management with evidence showing…
- .. that Dean Dobranski was paid by the Law School, but had a secret salary contract privately held with Tom Monaghan
- .. how Monaghan used a "commit-then-trickle" strategy to undermine the autonomy of non-profit organizations supported by his Foundation (using these organizations to serve "for the good of the Foundation" because "what's good for one is good for the other" per testimony from Monaghan himself and the AMF CFO)
- .. that the Law School perceives itself as a ministry populated with ministerial professors under Monaghan's leadership
- .. that Tom Monaghan appears to use a personal loyalty filter to evaluate both benign and serious organizational incidents
- .. that profits from Monaghan's south Florida real estate venture do not go directly to the Ave Maria Foundation (as previously stated) but rather to a trust held by Monaghan
- .. that Monaghan repeatedly failed to heed legal warnings about misrepresentations surrounding his Ave Maria Town development
- .. how complacent Ave Maria School of Law Board members failed to perform fundamental tasks of organizational management such as reviewing the Dean's contract or the institution's financial projections
The firing of the law professors, accompanied by the aforementioned findings from the suit, galvanized alumni against the Dobranksi/Monaghan administration and roused statements from Catholic legal scholars who also criticized Ave Maria Law's management. Additional information will continue to surface in the future as AveWatch plows through court documents.
AMSL Board member Kate O'Beirne said in her October 2008 deposition testimony that the Board anticipated the firing of Safranek and the others as "a public relations problem for the law school". But she and the Board decided to proceed anyway, counting on the professors to be (in her words) "prudent"… that is, to roll over and grovel in lieu of fighting their termination. O'Beirne:
Well, I thought that following his [Safranek's] suspension, rather than requesting a hearing or suing over his suspension and termination, he might approach the law school and seek a financial settlement, an agreement to leave his employment. I thought there was a possibility for such an agreement to be reached, if he so sought it.
Instead, Safranek sought justice. Monaghan, O'Beirne, and the other Ave Maria administrators grossly miscalculated.
Former principal accused of sexual harassment
By Mitch Hotts
September 15, 2009A former counselor at Mount Clemens Middle School claims her former principal created a hostile work environment repeatedly asking her opinion of pornographic videotapes and extramarital affairs, according to a lawsuit she has filed.
Arielle Muzzin of Harrison Township filed suit in Macomb County Circuit Court against Mount Clemens Community Schools and Paul W. Reeves, the former middle school principal who is now superintendent of East Jackson Community Schools in Jackson, Mich.
Muzzin worked for the district as a counselor from September 2005 until November 2008 when she was laid off for what she claims was retaliation for rejecting Reeves' advances.
"We were horrified when we heard her story and we do a lot of sexual harassment cases," said Deborah Gordon, a Bloomfield Hills-based attorney handling the case.
Muzzin is suing the district and Reeves for alleged violations of the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act and Bullard Plaweck Employee Right to Know Act, seeking a judgment for lost wages and benefits and an injunction blocking further acts of discrimination.
Reeves, who became superintendent in East Jackson on Aug.
1, could not be reached for comment Monday. Douglas Scott, president of the East Jackson school board, declined to comment.
Charles Muncatchy, superintendent of Mount Clemens Community Schools, had not seen a copy of the lawsuit but denied Muzzin's layoff was in retaliation for complaints she filed with the school district's human resources department about the principal.
"That was part of a reduction in the work force due to budgetary issues," he said.
According to the complaint, Reeves engaged in "bizarre behavior" aimed at initiating an intimate relationship with Muzzin.
He insisted on meeting her several times a day, referred to her as his "special friend" and called her from "secret locations" in the school because other employees thought they were having an affair, the suit states.
Reeves also frequently brought up the topic of pornographic videotapes he had confiscated from a teacher's classroom even though she told him to turn the materials over to human resources, according to the suit.
After routinely receiving positive employee evaluations, Muzzin said in her lawsuit that the former principal gave her a review with negative comments and imposed additional job duties because she refused to reciprocate his romantic interest.
In December of 2007, she filed a sexual harassment complaint with human resources and a month later asked for a transfer out of the middle school, according to her lawsuit.
The suit goes on to say that she was advised by the district on Feb. 29, 2008, that "because an administrator's livelihood was on the line" there wasn't enough evidence to conclude harassment had taken place but school officials agreed to prohibit Reeves from evaluating her job performance.
The lawsuit isn't the only alleged problem the former principal caused the school district.
Reeves was suspended for 10 days in November 2008 for failing to seek formal approval from the Michigan Department of Education when he allowed students to take an MEAP makeup test.
Reeves also was forced to modify a letter he had addressed to parents that had indicated students were banned from the city's downtown area due to a rash of vandalism. School officials said while merchants had complained about the students, the principal had no authority to restrict anyone from traveling on public streets.
Former court administrator sues district judge
By Anne Sullivan
September 5, 2009SOUTHGATE — A former court administrator has sued 28th District Court and Judge James Kandrevas.
In a lawsuit filed Aug. 11 in Wayne County Circuit Court, Lori Shemka alleges wrongful discharge, violation of the Whistleblowers Protection Act and First Amendment violations.
Shemka, an attorney, worked at the court for about five months before she was fired.
She was hired Jan. 2 as court administrator, was appointed magistrate Feb. 4 and was fired May 15 but paid through June 1.
In the lawsuit, Shemka alleges that she was fired for pointing out numerous improper and unethical financial practices at the court.
Among her allegations in the lawsuit are:
Commingling of funds.
Creating a nonprofit corporation managed by relatives of Kandrevas and other court employees.
Violation of the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Some court employees conducted noncourt business in the court building during business hours and used court resources.
Fraudulent representation by the court to the state and federal governments in an upcoming drug court grant application seeking funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
That a separate bank account that had no approval from the city, which is the court's funding unit, was set up for the court's work program, and the account contained about $200,000 in recent months.
Kandrevas said the City Council was asking Wednesday night where the $200,000 is.
"There is no missing money," Kandrevas said. "If there is, I'm going after whoever took the money and will see they are punished and go to jail."
The court's records are audited by Plante & Moran and the state court administrator, he said.
"There is a lot of misinformation out there already and I'm not going to add to it," Kandrevas said.
He said any further comment would have to come from his attorney, Audrey Forbush.
A spokeswoman at Forbush's office Thursday said she was out of town for the holiday weekend and couldn't be reached.
"There is a clear abuse of the law by this particular judge," said Deborah Gordon, an attorney representing Shemka. "My client's career has been very, very badly affected. She did nothing wrong and is out of a job."
Shemka was dismissed for "philosophical differences" not for her performance, Gordon said. What she was doing was pointing out that the court was not following the proper procedures.
Shemka had worked four years as a court administrator in another district court and is well aware of the proper operating procedures, Gordon said.
"This is outrageous," she said.
Gordon said that after Shemka brought the issues to Kandrevas and her concerns were not addressed by the judge, she took it to the next level and reported it to the state court administrative office.
The state court administrative office responded by fax May 14 to her and Kandrevas, ordering Kandrevas to cease and desist with the activities in the letter, or it could be reported to the judicial Tenure Commission, according to the lawsuit.
On May 15, while attending a conference, the lawsuit alleges that Kandrevas wrote a termination letter to Shemka, changed the locks on the building and had court employees pack her personal belongings.
He met her at the door the next business day and fired her.
Shemka says in the lawsuit that her termination was in retaliation for her refusal to violate state law, and that action violates state public policy prohibiting an employer from firing an employee for refusing to violate a law.
Woman gets $1.1-million verdict
By Christina Hall
August 26, 2009A former Sterling Heights animal control officer was awarded a nearly $1.1-million verdict by a Macomb County Circuit Court jury in a civil lawsuit that alleged Sterling Heights police retaliated against her because she complained about a colleague who she said harassed her.
Ann Marie Rogers was awarded the damages after a trial that ended Monday. She filed a complaint against the city and former Police Chief David Vinson.
"She feels very vindicated," Rogers' attorney, Deborah Gordon, said Tuesday.
The city issued a statement saying it is "disappointed with the verdict and believes it is not supported by the evidence presented at trial and therefore excessive. The city and its insurance carrier are reviewing all grounds to mount an appeal."
Rogers was hired in 2003 and received a Civilian Employee of the Year award in 2006.
She said in May 2007 she tried to talk with police about the conduct of her coworker, with whom she had a brief relationship.
The coworker was suspended without pay then resigned, according to the complaint.
After he resigned, Rogers was charged with violating departmental policy regarding euthanizing animals and other violations -- charges the lawsuit alleges were filed in retaliation for her filing a police report and complaining internally about her former coworker.
Rogers said that Vinson would drop criminal charges if she resigned. She didn't and was fired in August 2007.
Criminal charges were filed but dismissed without objection by the Macomb County Prosecutor's Office, according to a malicious prosecution lawsuit Rogers filed in U.S. District Court in Detroit.
That complaint names the city, Vinson, Chief Michael Reese and Lt. Luke Riley, who conducted the departmental investigation.
Jury awards former animal control officer $1M in civil suit
By Cortney Casey
August 19, 2009STERLING HEIGHTS — After several weeks of testimony, a jury sided with a former Sterling Heights animal control officer in her civil suit against the city — to the tune of more than $1 million.
Jurors, who commenced deliberations in Macomb County Circuit Court Aug. 21, reconvened Aug. 24 and returned with a verdict just before 5 p.m., awarding Ann Marie Rogers $1,083,000 in damages in connection with her 2007 dismissal from the Sterling Heights Police Department.
"It's really a huge vindication for Ann Marie," said Deborah Gordon, Rogers' attorney. "These people really intentionally attempted to ruin her. It was just a pure, dumb vendetta against her, and totally uncalled for. It took a jury to rectify the incredible violation of the law that these guys who wear uniforms and badges think they can get away with."
Attorney Linda McGrail Belau issued a prepared statement Aug. 25 on behalf of the city. "The city of Sterling Heights is disappointed with the verdict and believes it is not supported by the evidence presented at trial and therefore excessive," the statement read. "The city and its insurance carrier are reviewing all grounds to mount an appeal."
Linda McGrail Belau, the attorney representing the city, could not be immediately reached for comment regarding the verdict.
Rogers' suit, which named the city and former Police Chief David Vinson as defendants, sought damages in excess of $25,000, alleging violations of Michigan's Whistleblower Protection Act and the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act.
During opening statements July 28, Gordon argued that Rogers was suspended, then fired, after she sought protection from a married co-worker with whom she had a brief affair.
McGrail Belau countered that supervisors terminated Rogers after she improperly used highly regulated euthanasia drugs belonging to the Police Department and failed to appear at subsequent disciplinary hearings.
According to Gordon, Rogers used — but later replaced — around $3 worth of the euthanasia drugs to put down a Rottweiler dying of bone cancer in the back of her vehicle.
Officers later used that as grounds for dismissal after Rogers pursued a personal protection order against her former paramour, who was harassing and threatening her, she said.
Gordon suggested that Rogers fell victim to a pervasive old boys club mentality at the department, and claimed other officers who had committed far graver offenses had retained their jobs.
But McGrail Belau said Rogers had been warned not to bring animals from her private rescue organization onto the job, failed to properly log use of the drug on that and other occasions, and was not forthcoming about the circumstances surrounding the dog's death in initial interviews.
The department later pursued charges in 41-A District Court against Rogers related to the drug's usage, though the case was dismissed without prejudice.
Addressing the jury during opening statements, McGrail Belau said the case boiled down to Rogers seeking a "payday" so she could concentrate on her nonprofit animal rescue operations.
She argued that the Special Investigations Division never reached a conclusion pertaining to Rogers' complaints against her co-worker because the man resigned, negating the need for a final ruling.
She also challenged whether Rogers truly felt threatened, indicating that Rogers willingly met with the co-worker in question during the period in which she now asserts that she feared for her life.
Gordon, who said Rogers has struggled to find work since her termination, said her client viewed the verdict with a "marvelous sense of relief."
She indicated she intends to pursue around $250,000 in reimbursement from the defendants for court costs and attorney fees.
Rogers still has a federal suit alleging similar claims pending in U.S. District Court.
Wisconsin high court finds religious school exempt from anti-discrimination laws
By Tresa Baldas
July 23, 2009Another "ministerial exception" case has popped up in the Midwest, where religious freedom is being weighed against workers' rights and anti-discrimination laws.
This week, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that a fired Catholic school teacher cannot sue for discrimination because many religious school teachers are not protected by state discrimination laws. In a 4-3 decision, the court said religious schools have a constitutional right to hire and fire employees to carry out their missions, and that includes many teachers.
The July 21 ruling came just weeks after the Ave Maria School of Law claimed a ministerial exception to avoid a wrongful termination suit from proceeding. The Catholic law school is trying to declare law professors as ministers, arguing that because the school is a religious institution, it is exempt from civil suits. The school also claims that it is eligible for "ecclesiastical abstention," requiring courts to "abstain from inquiring into, or interfering with, governance of the religious institution." That case is still pending.
According to court documents, the Wisconsin case — Coolee Catholic Schools v. Labor and Industry Review Commission — involved a first grade teacher, Wendy Oslund, who claimed she was let go during a 2002 downsizing because she was 53. She worked at St. Patrick's Elementary School, which was part of the Roman Catholic Diocese of La Crosse, Wis.
The state's high court held that the school had a constitutional right to make hiring and firing decisions as it saw fit, free from anti-discrimination laws.
"In our holding today, we are not giving a blanket exception to all religious school teachers. Future cases along these lines will necessarily be very fact-sensitive. But here the state has no constitutional authority to regulate the hiring and firing decisions of CCS for this first-grade teaching position," the court wrote. "Some also might argue that religious organizations should not be accorded deference or special freedoms to which other non-religious but otherwise similarly situated organizations are not entitled. That may or may not be true as a matter of policy, but it is not relevant to our analysis because religious freedom is accorded a special status in both our state and federal constitutions."
Dissenting, Justice Patrick Crooks said the decision "extends a free pass to religious schools to discriminate against their lay employees."
James Birnbaum of Milwaukee's Birnbaum Seymour Kirchner and Birnbaum, who represented the archdiocese, was unavailable for comment.
Dawn Marie Harris of DM Harris Law in LaCrosse Wis., who represented the teacher, was unavailable for comment.
Deborah Gordon, the attorney representing the law professors in the Ave Maria lawsuit, sees some big differences between her case and the Wisconsin one. Her clients teach torts, contracts and tax law, she said, whereas the Wisconsin parochial teacher had ministerial duties.
"This teacher led students in prayer. She taught religion. She was required to attend Mass and plan Mass," Gordon said. "That's the opposite of Ave Maria School of Law....Professors are not involved at all in ministerial duties. My one client was teaching contracts law.
My clients were never assigned to a theology class."
Gordon of the Law Offices of Deborah Gordon in Bloomfield Hills, Mich., said ecclesiastic exemptions are usually given to parochial schools where religion and theology are heavily taught.
"Ave Maria School of Law is not such a school," Gordon said. "It is a law school whose goal is to turn out lawyers."
Two Law Profs Settle Whistle-blower Suit Against Ave Maria
By Debra Cassens Weiss
July 17, 2009Two law professors have settled a lawsuit that claims they were denied tenure at Ave Maria School of Law in retaliation for their complaints.
Lawyer Deborah Gordon told NaplesNews.com that law professors Ed Lyons and Phil Pucillo “have agreed to a settlement, which does involve their obtaining tenure in part,” although the lawyers won’t continue to work for the school.
The professors had sued Ave Maria and its leaders in October, claiming they were disciplined for opposing the school’s move from Michigan to Florida and for reporting or preparing to report suspected violations of laws and regulations. The complaint alleged the violations involved “the independence of the corporate form,” breach of fiduciary duty and conflicts of interest.
Ave Maria had maintained the professors didn’t want to see the school relocate and had magnified academic freedom and governance issues. In court papers, the school maintained the professors were ministerial employees, making the Catholic institution exempt from their legal claims.
A third plaintiff, Steve Safranek, continues to press his suit against the school, according to the story at NaplesNews.com. A tenured law professor, Safranek was fired two years ago.
Turning the Tables
Parents accused of abusing daughter target prosecutor who brought caseBy Tresa Baldas
July 13, 2009Julian Wendrow recalls bitterly the afternoon of Nov. 27, 2007, when he got that mind-numbing phone call from child protective services.
His 14-year-old autistic daughter had accused him of sexually abusing her. The mute girl had typed out the allegation to school officials with the help of an aide.
"It just blind-sided us. It was like a tsunami that rolled over us," Wendrow said of the allegation, and the nightmare that transpired.
Wendrow, a father of two with no criminal history, and owner of a small painting business in West Bloomfield, Mich., was charged with sexually abusing his daughter and jailed for 80 days with no bond. His wife, Tali, a lawyer, was charged with failing to protect the girl. Their two children were taken away.
Isolated and horrified at the prospect of losing his kids, Wendrow fought losing his mind in his 6- by 6-foot cell, worried about the safety of his children, unable to make any calls to family. His wife was under house arrest, aghast by media reports in which prosecutors labeled her husband a child abuser and she a mother who failed to protect her daughter.
Four months after they were arrested, the charges were dropped due to a lack of evidence. Now, the couple is suing the prosecutor, police and 23 other defendants for malicious prosecution, alleging that prosecutors were "vicious and malicious" in aggressively pursuing a case that was largely based on weak evidence and unreliable statements.
"You can't just target innocent people and say, 'We were just trying to do our jobs,' " Wendrow said. "If you've made a mistake, you step up and say, 'I'm sorry.'…But in our case, there was no mistake. It was a malicious desire to achieve another notch on their belt — come hell or high water."
The Wendrows are not alone. They are among a long line of plaintiffs seeking to hold prosecutors accountable for their actions and to challenge the historically powerful government immunity defense, which in most instances keeps prosecutors from being sued.
Although courts have long upheld the immunity defense, a handful of recent decisions are starting to chip away at it, allowing wronged defendants to seek vindication, and pushing malicious prosecution claims beyond summary judgment.
Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit said that immunity did not apply to two Iowa prosecutors accused in the wrongful murder convictions of two men who served 25 years in prison before their convictions were overturned. In September, Tuscarawa County, Ohio, paid $2.2 million to settle a malicious prosecution case after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit found that the county's chief prosecutor did not have immunity because she arrested Anthony Harris for murder without probable cause and because her actions went outside the traditional scope of a prosecutor.
David Laufman, a former federal prosecutor and current white-collar partner in the Washington office of New York's Kelley Drye & Warren, believes that the immunity defense is losing its clout with judges, given the prosecutorial misconduct in cases making the news. He cited the recent prosecution of former Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), whose corruption conviction was thrown out in April due to prosecutors' mistakes.
"The collective impact of these cases, particularly high-profile ones, may be causing judges to lose confidence in the credibility and sometimes integrity of prosecutors. And that may be causing them to view immunity defenses with greater skepticism than they have historically," Laufman said.
A HIGH HURDLE
The U.S. Supreme Court has been dealing with prosecutor immunity since its 1976 ruling in Imbler v. Pachtman, when it held that state prosecutors acting within the scope of their duties are "absolutely immune from a civil suit." Since then, most Supreme Court rulings have sided with prosecutors on immunity. The latest came in January when the Court ruled in Van de Kamp v. Goldstein that county prosecutors are shielded from being sued, even if their management mistakes lead to erroneous convictions.
Jeffrey Sarles of Chicago's Mayer Brown is counting on the high court to once again rule in favor of absolute immunity when it hears his clients' case this fall. Sarles is representing two Iowa prosecutors fighting for immunity in Pottawattamie County v. McGhee.
Sarles' clients are accused of procuring false testimony during a homicide investigation — before charges were filed — and later using it at trial to convict two men of murder. The 8th Circuit said that such actions violated the defendants' due process rights and that the prosecutors are not entitled to absolute or qualified immunity.
Sarles argues that the prosecutors were acting within the scope of their jobs and are entitled to absolute immunity. "If [immunity] begins to get chipped away in various ways, then it becomes very difficult for prosecutors to do their job," Sarles said.
Daniel Warren, a partner in the Cleveland office of Baker Hostetler, who represented Harris before the 6th Circuit, agrees that the immunity defense is tough to get around, but not impossible, particularly when prosecutors have stepped outside their role as a prosecutor. For example, a statement at a press conference or investigative actions might not be considered core prosecutorial functions, and therefore not entitled to absolute immunity.
Warren said the 6th Circuit was sending a message when it ruled in his client's favor. "The message in that ruling is that prosecutors cannot necessarily hide behind immunity when they knowingly use their position to persecute someone without any basis," Warren said. "Had the case gone to trial, the immunity defense was pretty much out the window."
THE PROSECUTOR'S PERSPECTIVE
Prosecutors argue that the immunity defense is necessary in their line of work. They need to be able to investigate crimes, bring charges — and even drop charges should new evidence surface — without fear of getting sued by resentful crime suspects.
"Every prosecutor makes decisions every day that somebody could just go ahead and file a lawsuit over. If there is no immunity…anyone with a filing fee can sue, whether their case is meritorious or not," said James Fox, chairman of the National District Attorneys Association.
Fox, a prosecutor for nearly 27 years and currently the district attorney for San Mateo County, Calif., has been sued for malicious prosecution himself more than a dozen times, although never successfully. The immunity defense always worked, he said.
"Clearly, from my perspective, absolute immunity is critical because, otherwise, why would anyone want to be a prosecutor if they're going to end up with personal liability for doing their job?," Fox said.
David Gorcyca, the former prosecutor in Oakland County, Mich., who is being sued by the Wendrows, echoed similar concerns, saying prosecutors should be able to review and prosecute cases "without having to look over their shoulder in fear of being sued."
Gorcyca, now a private litigator at Flood Lanctot Connor & Stable in Royal Oak, Mich., defended his decision to charge the Wendrows, saying that the girl had disclosed to six different people that she was being abused at home. He also disputed allegations that his office relied on flimsy evidence obtained by using a controversial form of communication known as "facilitated communication." That's when a mute person types out messages on a keyboard with the help of an aide.
Gorcyca said the Wendrows themselves were strong advocates for that form of communication. He said they lectured on it, wrote articles in support of it, and urged the schools to implement it.
"When all the facts come to light through the course of the civil litigation, the public will have a complete understanding for the basis for which those charges were brought," Gorcyca said. "The decision will not only be justified, but will be legitimized." But that could take some time.The case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, is unlikely to get to a jury until next year — and that's if the claims survive an immunity challenge from Gorcyca.
As for why he dropped the charges, Gorcyca said, "The girl was petrified to go into court and testify....Without her testimony, we could not prove our case."
"I see no reason why the decision in my office should not be held immune from civil liability," added Gorcyca, who does not believe he owes the Wendrows an apology. "Over my dead body," he said.
For the Wendrows, Gorcyca's refusal to admit a mistake is infuriating.
"Had they been remotely interested in the facts and truth, it probably would have taken them 48 hours or so to realize that they had absolutely nothing," said the Wendrows' attorney, Deborah Gordon of the Law Offices of Deborah L. Gordon in Bloomfield Hills, Mich. Gordon said the prosecutors couldn't admit "that they screwed up" after dropping the charges. "They basically said, 'Hey, public, these Wendrow people, they're really guilty. But you know how it is — wink, wink — we just couldn't get them this time," Gordon said.
Ave Maria claims 'ecclesiastical abstention' over termination of three law professors
By Tresa Baldas
July 9, 2009Are Catholic law school professors really ministers?
A Michigan trial judge will decide that next week in a controversial employment dispute involving Ave Maria School of Law, which is trying to declare law professors as ministers to avoid a wrongful termination suit from proceeding.
In the latest twist to the two-year-old suit filed in state court by a three former professors, Tom Monaghan, the school's founder and financier, filed a motion last month claiming that the law professors are "ministerial." Therefore, he argues, because the school is a religious institution, the administration over these minister-professors is exempt from civil trial court under the "Establishment and Free Exercise of religious clauses of the First Amendment."
Monaghan also claims that the institution is eligible for "ecclesiastical abstention," requiring courts to "abstain from inquiring into, or interfering with, governance of the religious institution."
"We got a curveball thrown into the case, and the law school is shooting itself in the foot," said Deborah Gordon of the Law Offices of Deborah Gordon in Bloomfield Hills, Mich., who is representing the law professors.
Gordon is aghast at the theory that Catholic law school professors are ministers. "Are you people kidding or what," Gordon said, baffled by Monoghan's theory. Gordon thinks this argument could draw the ire of the American Bar Association. "The ABA approved them according to the ABA game plan," she said.
According to Gordon, in Safranek v. Monaghan, three law professors allege that they were fired in retaliation for questioning how Ave Maria was being run. Ecclesiastic matters had nothing to do with their termination, she said.
In court documents, the plaintiffs blasted Monaghan's theory that the school is shielded from liability because they are a religious body, and the professors spiritual guides. "The pending motion takes a position so untenable it is difficult to absorb on one reading....In fact...Monighan testified that AMSL was always intended to be 'independent' of Church governance. And Dean Bernard Dobranski has publicly stated that AMSL is 'not a seminary. We're a law school....[W]e never lose sight of the fact that our primary responsibility is to train people to be good lawyers.' "
Dobranski, who is out on medical leave, was unavailable for comment.
Officials at Ave Maria declined comment, citing school policy not to comment on pending litigation. Attorney Donald Miller, of Detroit's Butzel Long, who is representing the school, did not return calls seeking comment.
In court documents, the school defended its position that it is a religious institution, whose teachers are ministerial employees, and therefore immune from court interference into its administrative matters.
It cited canon law, stating that "the formation of an education given in a Catholic school be based upon the principles of Catholic doctrine: teachers are to be outstanding for their correct doctrine and integrity of life." Canon law also dictates that "in the individual Catholic universities, classes should be given which treat in a special way those theological questions which are connected with the disciplines of their faculties," the school stated in court documents.
Ave Maria also cited case law in arguing for immunity from court interference. Among the numerous cases cited in court documents was a 1996 U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decision in McDonough v. the Catholic University of America, in which a plaintiff denied tenure sued the school for sex discrimination and retaliation. The D.C. Circuit dismissed all claims on the basis that the ministerial exception applied, and it had no jurisdiction over the the school's employment decisions. The plaintiff in that case was a nun, whereas the law professor plaintiffs in the Ave Maria case are not clergy members.
Journalism school head hasn't resigned
Asked to step down, professor in talks with MSU about roleBy Kathryn Prater
From Lansing State Journal
July 8, 2009EAST LANSING - The director of Michigan State University's School of Journalism is still in talks with the university regarding her future role with the school, her attorney said.
After leading the journalism school for six years, Jane Briggs-Bunting, 59, was asked to resign as director last week by Pamela Whitten, the new dean overseeing the department.
Briggs-Bunting has not yet resigned, said Deborah Gordon, an employment attorney representing her in talks with the university.
"I just don't know how this is going to get resolved," Briggs-Bunting said. "I love the J-school. Our students are amazing. I'm convinced they'll reinvent the business. And we have just a tremendous faculty. I'm confident that can continue."
No matter what happens, Briggs-Bunting can continue serving as a faculty member at the university because she is a tenured professor.
Gordon said she did not anticipate taking the issue to court.
"We are talking to the administration about how she can continue to contribute to the journalism school and what her role will be," Gordon said. "I think everybody would agree that she loves the school, wants only the best for the school, remains totally committed to the school. If that involves her playing a different role because somebody new has come in and wants a different team, then Jane fully intends to act in the best interests of Michigan State University's School of Journalism."
Gordon said she expects to reach a resolution within the next couple of weeks.
Terry Denbow, vice president of university relations, on Tuesday said he would not comment beyond a statement released last week.
"I really don't have anything to add," he said. "That's the only statement I've given. That's the only statement I will give."
Last week's statement read: "Dean Whitten has requested that Jane Briggs-Bunting step down as director of the School of Journalism. Dean Whitten looks forward to working with Briggs-Bunting and the journalism school faculty to optimize an efficient and effective leadership transition."
David Hayhow, founder of the MSU Journalism Professional Advisory Council, said the dean did not consult the council about the decision. The group - made up of journalism school alumni, most of whom are working journalists - provides support, advice and financial assistance to the school.
"I found the way in which this was done to be very disappointing - the abruptness of it," he said. "Jane was given no opportunity to consider the situation at all. That's just not a very humane way of treating loyal employees, and she has been a very loyal employee and done very positive things for the school of journalism."
Supporters have rallied behind Briggs-Bunting and the journalism school through Web sites and social media tools, such as Facebook and Twitter.
"I have been so touched with some of the e-mails I've received, the phone calls I've received, all of the social networking that they're doing," Briggs-Bunting said. "I was just astounded at the outpouring of kindness and support."
Briggs-Bunting is president of the board of directors for MSU's student newspaper, the State News, and is a veteran reporter, media attorney and Michigan Journalism Hall of Fame inductee.
MSU's journalism school has about 20 faculty members, 600 undergraduate students and about 30 graduate students during the academic year, she said.
Court orders Tom Monaghan to turn over notes in Ave Maria Law School lawsuit
By The Ann Arbor News
June 18, 2009The Michigan Supreme Court has ordered former Domino's Pizza owner Tom Monaghan to turn over handwritten notes in a whistle-blower lawsuit filed by former Ave Maria School of Law professors.
In an opinion issued June 12, the court denied an appeal by Monaghan to avoid producing his personal notes.
In the suit, three professors charged they were fired for reporting what they said were administration violations of the law to law enforcement and legal agencies.
An Ann Arbor resident, Monaghan is the school's founder and chairman of its board.
Deborah Gordon is the attorney for Stephen Safranek, Edward Lyons and Phil Pucillo. She told Michigan Radio that Monaghan's notes clearly show he wanted them - and a number of others - fired.
Gordon said the professors haven't found tenured positions since they were fired. She said the trial is expected to begin early next year. Ave Maria formerly operated in space on Plymouth Road in Ann Arbor. The law school closed its Ann Arbor campus and has moved to Florida, where classes will be held for the first time in August.
Neither Gordon nor attorneys for the law school could be reached this morning.
Couple Suing Former Prosecutor, Others
By Bill Gallagher
FOX 2 NEWS, Detroit
June 15, 2009WEST BLOOMFIELD, Mich. - The case sounded horrific. A father accused of sexually assaulting his 14-year-old, autistic daughter. The mother charged with allowing it to happen. The prosecution's case quickly fizzled and now the couple is suing.
Former Oakland County Prosecutor David Gocyca and members of his staff are among the targets in the lawsuit.
"The system of justice under Gorcyca tried to destroy a family and they did it in a really blatant way where it was clear they were not on a search for the facts," said attorney Deborah Gordon.
Gordon represents Julian and Thal Wendrow of West Bloomfield. Police there arrested them in 2007, accusing the father of sexually assaulting his 14-year-old autistic daughter and the mother of permitting the alleged assaults.
The 14-year-old cannot speak but facilitated communication, a computer method was used to get information from her and as the basis of the prosecution's case. A facilitator helped the girl with the keyboard.
"It's a Ouija board at the end of the day," Gordon said.
Gordon argues the prosecutors never tested the reliability of facilitated communication or researched the method.
"To simply have the facilitative communicator step outside the room, ask the daughter, the girl at issue, whether or not she'd been abused by her father and without the facilitative communicator having heard the question, see what you get," said Gordon.
The charges against the Wendrows were dropped.
The attorney representing the West Bloomfield Police Department in the case says it is premature to comment on the charges contained in the lawsuit.
No comment so far from Grocyca's attorney. Police and prosecutors generally get broad immunity from lawsuits. However, Gordon is convinced the facts in this case could override those protections.
"It'd be wonderful if one day somebody in government would simply take responsibility and say I made a mistake," Gordon said.
Couple alleges false imprisonment in sex assault case involving teen daughter
By L.L. BRASIER
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER
June 14, 2009Julian and Thal Wendrow were arrested and jailed in December 2007 on charges that Julian sexually assaulted their 14-year-old autistic daughter and that Thal had allowed it to happen.
Prosecutors dropped the case nearly four months later after admitting that they did not have the evidence to proceed.
Now, in a federal lawsuit that is likely to test the limits of governmental immunity, the Wendrows of West Bloomfield have sued former Oakland County Prosecutor David Gorcyca and 24 other defendants, including the West Bloomfield Police Department. The lawsuit alleges malicious prosecution, false imprisonment and more than 50 other counts.
Defense attorneys say governmental immunity will be the defense for nearly all of the defendants.
Depositions began earlier this month. Julian Wendrow underwent several hours of questioning. Gorcyca and some of his former top aides, along with detectives involved in the case, are expected to be questioned in the coming weeks.
A trial is expected in early 2010.
"What happened to the Wendrow family was a tragedy," said Deborah Gordon, the Bloomfield Hills attorney representing them.
Parents flummoxed
The Wendrows say they still don't understand how prosecutors could have brought sexual assault charges against them, particularly when the evidence against them was so flimsy. And in some instances nonexistent.
But the West Bloomfield couple say they hope that the federal lawsuit they have brought against their accusers -- Gorcyca and dozens of lawyers, investigators and police officers -- will give them some answers. And, more importantly, some vindication.
The lawsuit is filed in the U.S. District Court in Detroit and is assigned to Judge John Corbett O'Meara.
Severe accusations
The suit alleges a prosecution that proceeded even as its foundation crumbled and grew more suspect. Much of the case was based on statements of the Wendrows' 14-year-old daughter, whom they were accused of assaulting.
The girl cannot speak, and the statements were reportedly typed with the help of a teachers aide, a widely discredited method known as facilitated communication. The prosecution, by its own admission, did not research the method before arresting the Wendrows and seeking to sever their parental rights.
Nor did prosecutors have substantial physical evidence. The girl underwent a physical exam as part of the police investigation that showed her hymen still intact, even though police and prosecutors alleged she had been raped since age 7.
While the allegations against police and prosecutors are severe, such cases are tough to win for citizens who feel they've been wronged.
Both state and federal law give broad governmental immunity to law enforcement agencies, an acknowledgement by legislators that such agencies need wide discretion in how they handle cases.
Those suing must prove that the police officers or prosecutors were acting without regard to their constitutional rights or welfare -- a tough sale in some courtrooms, legal experts say.
"In very general terms, cases involving government immunity do not proceed to trial," said Timothy Young of Cummings, McClorey, Davis and Acho, a law firm that specializes in defending against those suing the government. The firm is not involved in the Wendrow case. "It is our experience that about two-thirds of the cases get dismissed."
But the prosecutors and investigators "have to be held accountable for what they did to this family," Gordon said. Gordon is known for her successful lawsuits against wayward police departments and badly behaved courts. She obtained a $3-million verdict in a 2006 wrongful discharge suit against the Bloomfield Township District Court bench, filed by a clerk who had been dismissed by the judges there.
Steven Potter, an Auburn Hills attorney, is representing Gorcyca, who left office in January and now is in private practice; former assistant prosecutor Andrea Dean, who handled the Wendrow case, and former chief assistant prosecutor Deborah Carley, who oversaw the case. Potter also represents the Oakland County Sheriff's department, which participated in the investigation. He declined to discuss the specific allegations against his clients.
Governmental immunity
Bloomfield Hills attorney William Hampton, who represents West Bloomfield and its police department, said of the Wendrow lawsuit: "Governmental immunity is going to be a defense for virtually all of the defendants in this case."
Newly elected Oakland County Prosecutor Jessica Cooper disbanded in January the child sexual assault unit that brought the case against the Wendrows, merging it into another division. She also dismissed several prosecutors in the unit, including Dean and Carley. Cooper said the dismissals were for budgetary reasons.
Gorcyca had "very little, if anything, to do in the decision" to bring the case against the Wendrows, according to a May 7, 2008, letter written by one of Gorcyca's attorneys to the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission, which was investigating Gorcyca's role in the Wendrow prosecution. Instead, Gorcyca relied on experienced prosecutors who maintained that the girl could communicate through facilitated communication. The letter is now part of the federal court file.
Carley appears to have played a leading role in the prosecution, even though she was in administration at the time. According to court filings, she authorized the charges and interviewed the girl's brother, who has Asperger's syndrome -- a mild form of autism. He also is named as a plaintiff in the case.
Lawsuit specifics
Among some of the other issues raised in the lawsuit:
Early in the case, prosecutors sought to sever the Wendrows' parental rights and argued against allowing Thal Wendrow to visit the boy in foster care. But attorneys representing the prosecutors now claim they had nothing to do with removing the children from their home. According to records, prosecutors never sought to have swabs taken from the girl analyzed for DNA. Prosecutors admitted freely in published reports that they were unaware that so-called facilitated communication had been widely discredited by researchers and major universities worldwide, with most experts concluding it was the person guiding the hands who was communicating. Meanwhile, the Wendrows also are fighting to have their fingerprints and arrest files expunged from police records. Prosecutors contend that, under Michigan law, those records can be retained in child sexual assault cases even if the charges are dropped. A circuit court judge agreed. The Wendrows have taken the matter to the Michigan Court of Appeals.
And in a motion filed last week, the Wendrows demanded that the prosecutors and police turn over photos taken during the physical exam. A federal magistrate is expected to rule on that this month.
"My clients are very frustrated," said attorney Romi Mezi, who is handling the fingerprint matter for the Wendrows. "They were wrongly charged, and there is no justification to keep those records on file."
Couple sue Keego Harbor over public boat ramp
By Mike Martindale
The Detroit News
May 7, 2009Keego Harbor -- As the weather warms up, so do disputes over public boat ramps on local lakes -- with the latest controversy involving alleged harassment by city officials and police.
Carey Lawrence Koponen and Lindley Galpin are suing the city of Keego Harbor, its city manager and a police sergeant for alleged retaliation and malicious prosecution stemming from the couple's complaints about improper use of a city-owned boat ramp near their property.
The couple claim their problems began in June 2006 when they noticed people were improperly using a boat ramp owned by the city that is adjacent to their property.
According to the Oakland Circuit Court complaint, any commercial use of the ramp is prohibited, along with any improper behavior, such as revving engines or lending the key to the ramp to anybody outside the keyholder's household.
"But an area wave-runner operation uses it all the time," said the couple's attorney, Deborah Gordon. "When my clients complained about the practice, hoping to have the matter corrected, they found they instead were suddenly being watched by the police. And they soon found they were being called into court."
Initially, after Koponen visited Keego Harbor City Manager Dale Stuart at City Hall, he was told the violations would be addressed. Instead, Gordon said, the violations continued.
In April 2007, after repeated complaints about improper use of the ramp, the lawsuit alleges Keego Police Sgt. Daniel Reynolds began "a pattern of harassment and retaliation."
The lawsuit alleges Reynolds conducted surveillance of the couple at their home, wrote them numerous citations for improper parking and other violations, and other "threatening and intimidating behavior."
In January 2008, after all the citations were dismissed, the couple retuned home and were again visited by Reynolds. They even sought a personal protection order, but it was denied by the court because it involved a municipality.
Stuart did not return a telephone call seeking comment and Reynolds, when contacted, said he had not been served with the lawsuit. Reynolds denied knowing the couple or any issues resulting from use of the city-owned boat ramp.
The lawsuit, assigned to Judge Colleen O'Brien, seeks in excess of $25,000 in damages and an injunction against any further wrongdoing.
Keego Harbor couple accuses officials of harassment
By ANN ZANIEWSKI
The Oakland Press
May 6, 2009KEEGO HARBOR – A Keego Harbor couple alleges in a lawsuit that city officials are harassing them for complaining about what they believe is the unlawful use of a boat ramp near their house.
Carey Lawrence Koponen and Lindley Galpin say that use of the ramp on Dollar Lake by a local watercraft business goes against city regulations and forces them to put up with fumes and the noisy revving of engines.
The complaint filed in Oakland County Circuit Court alleges that Koponen has complained repeatedly to City Manager Dale Stuart to no avail, and that the couple has been subjected to harassment by Keego Police Sgt. Daniel Reynolds in retaliation for speaking up.
"They have no quiet enjoyment of the home they bought," said Deborah Gordon, the couple's attorney.
The lawsuit is against the city, Stuart and Reynolds.
Stuart said in an e-mail response to an inquiry by The Oakland Press that the city has not been served with the lawsuit. Reynolds did not return messages seeking comment.
Koponen purchased the home on Willow Beach in June 2006. The property backs up to Dollar Lake, which is connected by a canal to Cass Lake.
There is a public boat ramp for residents adjacent to Koponen's property that has various regulations, including the prohibition of "any commercial business purpose" and the revving of engines, as well as other restrictions.
Koponen and Galpin have observed the owner and employees of a local watercraft business repeatedly using the ramp, according to the lawsuit.
The lawsuit says the couple is disturbed by the revving of engines, fumes, exhaust and excessive traffic.
The company, Keego Powersports, is not named specifically in the lawsuit.
Koponen's complaints went unheeded. The lawsuit says he was told once by Stuart that a person who was violating the boat ramp regulations had donated a boat to the police department and therefore was afforded special treatment.
The lawsuit alleges that by April 2007, Reynolds began a pattern of retaliatory harassment against Koponen and Galpin. Gordon said Reynolds has written the couple frivolous citations for things such as parking on the grass in front of their house, something other residents do without getting in trouble.
"He's spending an inordinate amount of time observing and surveilling our client," Gordon said.
The various citations issued to the couple were all dismissed with prejudice by a judge in January 2008. Later that day, the couple returned home and were visited again by Reynolds, who "again engaged in threatening and intimidating conduct," according to the complaint.
Koponen and Galpin were unsuccessful in their effort to get a personal protection order against Reynolds.
The lawsuit says the improper use of the boat ramp continues.
Heath Williams, general manager of Keego Powersports, said he felt that the business had just as much of a right to use the boat launch as residents and went to the city manager last year.
He said the business has a written agreement with the city that allows it to only use the boat launch to deliver watercraft to Keego Harbor residents who live on Cass Lake.
Williams said Keego Powersports doesn't use the ramp often, and probably used it just 10 times last year. "We've been really respectful and we've followed our agreement with the city," he said.
The lawsuit alleges retaliation in violation of the Michigan Constitution, malicious prosecution, abuse of process and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The couple seeks unspecified damages in an amount greater than $25,000, the minimum threshold amount for a lawsuit to be heard at the circuit court level.
The case has been assigned to Judge Colleen O'Brien.
Monaghan's money will follow Ave Maria law school move to North Naples
By LIAM DILLON
Naples Daily News
April 30, 2009NAPLES — The Ave Maria School of Law's big move this summer from Michigan to Southwest Florida comes with a big promise.
Tom Monaghan, the law school's founder, has pledged to cover future operating deficits at the law school through 2017, according to a December letter to Florida education officials.
That means Monaghan will have backed the law school financially for more than 17 years since its inception in 2000. He's spent $56 million already to start and support the school, he said in the letter.
This year, Monaghan's committed a $2.7 million grant, a $1.95 million line of credit and is underwriting the school's moving and legal costs, the audit said.
"Please be assured that I continue to support Ave Maria School of Law in the distinctive educational philosophy and outstanding professional training that it provides in educating our future lawyers," Monaghan wrote in the letter.
Monaghan's letter and additional detailed financial information were part of the law school's application to operate in Florida. The state regulatory body, the Florida Commission for Independent Education, approved Ave Maria in March. That action, along with a nod from the American Bar Association, allows Ave Maria to become Southwest Florida's first law school when it moves to a North Naples campus this summer.
The Daily News obtained Monaghan's letter and other financial information through a public records request.
The state's licensing requirements for Ave Maria were stringent because the school has a deficit. Last year's deficit was $2.9 million, according to the audit.
The school plans to decrease that amount by selling its $16.5 million facility in Michigan, increasing enrollment and donations and decreasing the amount it awards in scholarships.
At a January hearing in Tallahassee, the Florida Commission asked for more specific information about the school's financial situation.
"That's just a letter," Commission member Sam Lauff said of Monaghan's commitment to the school. "I would have to defer to counsel. Is there anything else that should be more concrete in order to support the school for their lack of finances? Instead of just a letter saying, ‘Yeah I'm gonna do it'?"
The commission requested that Ave Maria submit the same financial data it sent to the American Bar Association for that organization's approval.
In March, the school mailed an additional nine pages of financial information to the state. The data included notes saying the school was meeting its fundraising goals and recently had received a pledge for a multimillion dollar oceanside home in Southern California from an anonymous benefactor, the largest deferred gift in its history.
Ave Maria's budget documents show that the school is relying on a substantial boost in donations.
Its 2010 budget calls for $2.5 million in donations, almost four times what it received last year.
Deborah Gordon, a Michigan employment attorney who's representing three former Ave Maria law professors suing the school for wrongful termination, said that projection was overly optimistic.
"Based on testimony in the case thus far, that would be an amazing feat," Gordon said.
Instead, Gordon said, testimony in the case has shown that the school has relied on Monaghan and his foundation for more money than it projects at the beginning of each year.
Still, she was pleased that Monaghan will fund the school for another eight years.
"I think that's a good thing, if true," she said.
Further details on Monaghan's pledge are needed before evaluating it, according to Bob Jarvis, a law professor at Nova Southeastern University who has written about the history of law schools.
Jarvis wants to know, for example, if Monaghan's commitment is unlimited or legally binding.
"If this is all being done on a handshake, handshakes are really only worth the paper they're written on," Jarvis said.
The law school is not institutionally connected with Ave Maria University, the private school in the Catholic tradition also founded by Monaghan, nor the eastern Collier County town co-developed by him. Monaghan is chancellor and sits on Ave Maria University's board, and is chairman of the law school's board. Also, the law school is leasing its North Naples campus from the university.
Law school officials declined an interview for this story. Instead, they issued a statement on the school's financial health.
"As we prepare for relocation and the inaugural academic year at the (North Naples) Campus, the law school is enjoying unprecedented success in admissions and is encouraged by its fund raising efforts," Acting Dean Eugene Milhizer said in the statement. "As a policy, we do not discuss specific, detailed financial information."
Ave Maria law school spends more than $1 million in legal fees last year
By LIAM DILLON
Naples Daily News
April 30, 2009NAPLES — What's the most lucrative position for an Ave Maria School of Law graduate?
It might be representing the school in a lawsuit.
The law school and its founder Tom Monaghan appear to have racked up more than $1 million in legal fees last fiscal year, including the first eight months of defending a wrongful termination and whistleblower lawsuit, the school's audit says.
The suit, filed by three former law professors in October 2007 in a Michigan county court, alleges the professors lost their jobs for opposing the school's planned move from Michigan to Southwest Florida and reporting the school to various law enforcement and investigatory agencies.
Experts in Michigan employment law called the litigation costs listed in the audit, "astounding," "amazing" and "mindboggling."
"I think this is consistent with an organization that is worried about its image and has the funds available to fight it by any means necessary," said Kathleen Bogas, a Michigan employment attorney and past president of the National Employment Lawyers Association.
Gary Maveal, a professor at the University of Detroit Mercy's law school, said costs to defend a contentious case like this one could easily reach a couple hundred thousand dollars. But the numbers listed in the audit were "just hard to fathom."
"It's gotta be that money's no limit here in fighting this one," Maveal said.
The law school's annual audit, which ends June 30, 2008, lists $776,180 as a receivable from Monaghan's foundation covering legal costs and an additional $217,141 as an insurance receivable for litigation costs. The two figures total $993,321. No litigation other than the professors' suit is referenced. There is a separate line item in the audit for "legal and professional fees" for $142,227.
One million dollars in legal fees allows a $500-an-hour attorney to work more than 11 months straight, assuming a 40-hour week.
Bogas and Maveal speculated the costs could be going toward teams of lawyers, plus outside consultants that could cover various other aspects of the litigation.
The school declined to comment on the audit.
"As a policy, we do not discuss specific, detailed financial information," Acting Dean Eugene Milhizer said in a statement.
Two Michigan law firms, Butzel Long and Pear Sperling, are defending the suit, which was filed against the law school, the law school foundation, Monaghan's foundation, and Monaghan and Dean Bernard Dobranski as individuals.
The office of Butzel Long attorney Donald Miller declined to comment about the legal fees and Pear Sperling attorney Karl Fink couldn't be reached for comment.
Still, the legal fees listed in the audit could be less than the law school's potential payout in the case.
Deborah Gordon, the attorney for the three ex-Ave Maria professors, said she was seeking "seven figures" in damages for each of her clients. There's no limit on awards for plaintiffs in Michigan employment cases, Bogas and Maveal said.
Gordon said she's open to settling.
"Let's put it this way," Gordon said. "There's no doubt given the rate of money being spent here, it would go a long way toward a settlement."
Gordon, who's working on contingency, said her costs were half or less of those listed in Ave Maria's audit.
The suit is nearing the end of discovery, Gordon added, with a few depositions still remaining. The case is scheduled for a mandatory pre-trial evaluation next month, with a trial slated for late summer, she said.
That means legal costs have continued to grow for Ave Maria since last June.
Bogas expected a big number on the school's next audit, too.
"If this is the legal fees for one year and it hasn't gone to trial yet," she said, "you ain't seen nothing yet."
Waterford settles harassment claim with former police clerk
By CAROL HOPKINS
The Oakland Press
April 30, 2009WATERFORD TWP. — A police department clerk who sued Waterford Township and Police Chief Daniel McCaw over sexual harassment has received a $325,000 settlement.
Penny Dye — who worked at the department from 1998 to 2008 — claimed she was the subject of sexual harassment, a hostile work environment and retaliation for making complaints against coworkers.
Dye's attorney, Deborah Gordon, called the harassment a "top-down problem."
"Some of these departments are the last bastions for good old boys in charge," she said.
Gordon said the "cowboy mentality led by two or three guys" in the police department has been going on for years.
Department leaders "refuse to get a grip on the problem," she said.
McCaw has been chief since June 30, 2006. His predecessor was John Dean. McCaw said Wednesday attorneys advised him that he is not permitted to comment at length on the case.
McCaw did say he was "surprised and saddened" about the negative statements regarding the police department.
"Since I've been chief, I've gone out of my way to address complaints, even to the point of reassigning supervisors," he said.
"I've made an effort to ensure that people know I will not condone harassment. People are trained on the policies and told I will hold them accountable for their actions."
Dye said when she figured out what was happening, she was embarrassed.
"I still am. When I spoke up, it was concerning somebody else. I was a witness," she said.
Then Dye learned that the harassing messages concerned her and she filed complaints.
"I spoke the truth and left nothing out. I worried I would be retaliated against — and that is what happened."
Gordon said: "They have this running joke going ... referring to women's anatomy. They even have a little song that goes along with it. There were comments about women wearing jeans or stretch pants."
Carl Solden, who has been Waterford's supervisor since 2000, said, "I am hard pressed that something so severe was happening in the police department, especially with the people I know."
Solden was a Waterford police officer from 1966 through 1998.
Township officials reported that currently 107 people work at the police department and 22 are women.
"(Dye) filed grievances and they were processed by us," said Rob Seeterlin, director of fiscal and human resources.
"There were corrective actions taken (at the police department)."
The settlement has been paid through Michigan Municipal Risk Management, a self-insurance fund in which Waterford Township and about 300 other municipalities participate.
The settlement amount was an economic decision, said Seeterlin.
"Trials can be very expensive even if you win, and there is the potential a jury could side with the plaintiff," said Seeterlin. "A settlement is not an admission of guilt."
The case was discussed by township officials in a closed executive session on Dec. 8, 2008. The board approved the settlement in open session April 13.
Gordon said Dye had a perfect record at the department.
"There were phony investigations into her conduct and false accusations," said Gordon. "Gradually, drip by drip, she would see her career slipping away. After time, you can't put the genie back in the bottle."
Dye, who lives in Grand Blanc and works as a legal secretary, said the case wasn't about the money.
"I had a career I basically lost," she said.
"I had friends who were like family to me. Since this case is over, I've felt bad because there will continue to be these issues because nothing has changed and it has been kept a secret," Dye said.
No one has suffered consequences at the department, Dye said.
"I'm not the first person (to be harassed) and I won't be the last."
FYI
Judging from three recent significant court decisions and settlements against Oakland County communities, area municipalities may have a reason to be concerned when attorney Deborah Gordon comes knocking.
Besides the Waterford Township $325,000 settlement, Gordon was also victorious in the 2006 case of former 48th District Court employee Michelle Horton, who was fired and sued on the basis that her good name had been smeared by judges and elected officials.
The jury awarded Horton $3 million. The judgment was later reduced in an out-of-court settlement. Court officials did not release the settlement amount.
In February 2008, Sylvan Lake Police officer James Sherrod was awarded $300,000 as a result of his case against Sylvan Lake Police Chief Mark Silver, who Sherrod alleged made sexual advances toward him. Gordon was the lead attorney on the case.
Gordon — daughter of former TV personality Lou Gordon — works with Carol A. Laughbaum, Sarah S. Prescott and Sharon Dolente at their office in Bloomfield Hills.
click here to view full article and related video
Pay Equity Day is a reminder for women to get fair share
By PATRICIA MONTEMURRI
FREE PRESS COLUMNIST
April 28, 2009It was only when her employer filed for bankruptcy that Kerri Sleeman, an automotive engineer, found out she was making less than men doing the same work she did.
Sleeman worked for the now-defunct Detroit Center Tool in Warren. Her salary and that of her coworkers became part of the bankruptcy court record in 2002 when employees were trying to get their last paychecks. That's when Sleeman, then a design supervisor, found out she was making several thousand dollars less than men in similar jobs -- and even less than employees she was supervising.
"It was a real eye-opener," said Sleeman, 38, who now runs the COMPASS student orientation and mentoring center at her alma mater, Michigan Technological University. "I thought it wouldn't happen to a female in engineering."
The gender wage gap won't go away.
Today is National Pay Equity Day, and it calls attention to a lingering disparity between what men and women earn, sometimes in the same jobs.
For every dollar earned by men, women earn 78 cents, according to an analysis of 2007 U.S. Census Data by the American Association of University Women. Michigan ranks 44th among the states, with women earning about 71 cents compared with every dollar for men.
It wasn't until a few decades ago that women joined the workforce in large numbers. The pay gap is partly explained by higher-paying occupations in which men dominate, like construction and manufacturing. Women tend to congregate in fields like teaching and nursing. And women are more likely to take time away from the workforce to rear children.
But the AAUW study, even when it factored in differences based on occupations, shows a persistent gap between the sexes.
When the study looked at college graduates in similar jobs one year after graduation, women earned 5% less than men, said Catherine Hill, one of the study's authors. Ten years out of college, the pay gap grew, said Hill.
But how do you figure out if you're getting paid less?
"Unfortunately, the reality is that women are kind of flying blind and a lot of times, it's a gut feeling," said Deborah Gordon, a Bloomfield Hills attorney who is litigating two gender pay cases right now. "It's water cooler talk. It's finding something on the copy machine ... seeing a document lying around somewhere."
One of Gordon's clients is a woman who was her company's top salesperson. Yet, when annual bonuses of stock options were awarded, she found out from office chatter that she received less than her male colleagues.
The woman sued her employer. The case went to private arbitration and the woman (who still works for the firm) prevailed.
To find out what your peers are making takes tact and tenacity.
Women's rights icon Gloria Steinem advocates breaking the taboos against revealing your salary. "Sharing the information of salary in an office or factory is an outrageous act, yet a very simple one," she said.
If you are a member of a union or professional organization, you may have access to salary lists or ranges. The salaries of public employees who work for local, state and federal governments are public and open to requests under state and federal Freedom of Information Acts.
Lilly Ledbetter, now a 71-year-old grandmother, found out she was making a lot less than her male counterparts at Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. in Alabama when a colleague slipped her some information. She sued in 1998. She eventually won a multimillion dollar award, but it was overturned in 2007 by the U.S. Supreme Court because of the statute of limitations.
Ledbetter's story became an effective media ad for President Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign, and Congress enacted a law in January that gives victims of pay discrimination more time and leeway to sue for redress.
At Michigan Tech, Sleeman leads seminars to teach new college grads -- both women and men -- how to negotiate their salaries.
"It focuses on negotiating what you're worth, how to do the research and talk about what you're worth," Sleeman explained. "Even in my career, I could have used that help.
"I tell the women and men that the disparity affects families. It not only affects the person it's happening to, it affects their spouses, their kids and how they affect their aging parents," said Sleeman, "and the numbers and the harm adds up over time."
Former staffer sues Martha Reeves for wrongful dismissal
By Paul Egan
The Detroit News
April 27, 2009Detroit -- A former office manager for Detroit City Councilwoman Martha Reeves filed a federal lawsuit today, alleging she lost her job after trying to stop payroll fraud by employees in Reeves' office.
Carolyn Dianne Chambers alleges that soon after she was hired in January 2006, she noticed "that some of the contractual employees were not accurately tracking the hours they worked, thus intentionally being paid for time they did not work."
Chambers alleges she developed a system to accurately track hours worked, but certain employees of Reeves "were outraged ... and refused to comply with the new system."
Reeves could not be reached for comment. Tommy Stephens, a former aide to Reeves who is named as a defendant in the lawsuit, said the allegations are false, and Chambers lost her job when Reeves learned Chambers and another employee were being paid more than Reeves thought they were being paid.
Chambers, who is white, alleges Stephens, who is black, called her "cracker" and used other racial insults against her when Chambers took steps to try to stop Stephens from being paid for more hours than he worked.
She complained to Reeves, but the councilwoman refused to help and cut Chambers' pay by $20,000, the lawsuit alleges.
Deborah Gordon, Chambers' Bloomfield Hills attorney, said Stephens is lying. "Nothing had ever been said to her before about making too much money," Gordon said. "It was total retaliation."
Chambers "involuntarily resigned on or about March 6, 2007," the lawsuit alleges.
Named as defendants in the lawsuit are the city of Detroit, the Detroit City Council, Reeves and Stephens, who resigned in December.
Stephens said he accumulated comp time from working night meetings and used some of it for a two-day visit to Florida to visit his sick mother. But he denied he was paid for a two-week vacation, as Chambers alleges.
"I think she's trying to sue Martha Reeves to get money," Stephens said. "She thinks the city will settle this case out of court."
Chambers previously worked as a neighborhood city hall manager in the administration of former Mayor Dennis Archer Jr.
In October, the city headed off an expected lawsuit from Yakima Washington, a former aide to Detroit City Council President Monica Conyers. Washington was expected to allege she was fired after being forced to perform personal errands for Conyers, such as picking up her dry cleaning, law department memos show. The city settled for $90,000.
The Chambers case is assigned to U.S. District Judge Paul D. Borman.
Waterford settles sexual harassment suit
By Brooke Meier
Staff writer for the Spinal Column Newsweekly
April 22, 2009Waterford Township has settled a lawsuit filed against the township and its police department by a former department employee who alleged she was subjected to sexual harassment.
Penny Jo Dye, a former information systems clerk and steno clerk for the department, alleged in her lawsuit that she became the subject of inflamed, derogatory and degrading comments of a sexual nature after she gave a statement supporting a co-worker who had also made claims of sexual harassment against the department.
Under the settlement agreement, Dye and her attorney will be paid a total of $325,000 in exchange for dismissing the suit. Dye will receive $216,464 and her lawyer will receive $108,535. Another provision of the settlement states Dye can't apply for employment with Waterford Township at any time in the future.
According to the lawsuit, Dye made a verbal complaint of sexual harassment to her supervisor per the police department's sexual harassment policy. A written complaint reportedly was filed with the township's director of fiscal and human resources.
The lawsuit claimed Dye was then aggressively retaliated against by the township and the police department.
The suit alleged the retaliation included removing Dye's job duties, removing her from e-mail distribution lists, withholding training, removing her ability to use flex time, initiating and continuing ridiculous and unjustified internal investigations to discipline her, relegating her to a corner and other demeaning treatment.
According to the lawsuit, after months of enduring harassment and retaliation, complaining about the harassment and retaliation, and the township's refusal to intervene and stop the harassment and retaliation, Dye was fired on or about April 18, 2008.
Township and police department officials denied the allegations, according to the settlement agreement.
Waterford Township Supervisor Carl Solden and Fiscal and Human Resources Director Robert Seeterlin declined to comment on the settlement, citing a non-disclosure clause in the agreement.
Calls to the township's attorney in the case, Eileen Husband, and Dye's lawyer, Deborah Gordon, were not returned prior to press time.
University will pay legal fees of former dental student
By Veronica Menaldi
March 17, 2009The University will be forced to pay approximately $320,990 in legal fees to the law firm that represented Alissa Zwick, a former University Dentistry student who claimed she was unfairly expelled from the University.
The University will be forced to pay approximately $320,990 in legal fees to the law firm that represented Alissa Zwick, a former University Dentistry student who claimed she was unfairly expelled from the University.
In addition to the $320,990, Zwick was awarded $1.72 million at a federal court hearing in December.
Zwick, who was expelled in 2005 after being told she wasn't fit to practice dentistry by the associate dean of the Dental School and other instructors, filed the lawsuit in May 2006.
At the hearing in December, a jury ruled that the University violated Zwick's rights since she was discharged after her third year of dental school while maintaining a "B" average.
In response to the ruling, the University is appealing the jury's verdict, according to University spokeswoman Kelly Cunningham.
"We believe that there was not sufficient evidence for them to find that Ms. Zwick's due process rights were violated by the defendants or by the School of Dentistry," Cunningham wrote in an e-mail statement yesterday. "The evidence shows that the School of Dentistry complied with all legal requirements and with its own procedures."
Cunningham added that before anyone can be dismissed for academic reasons, the student is "entitled to due process."
"To comply with the legal requirements of due process, a student must be made aware of the faculty's dissatisfaction with his/her progress and the decision to dismiss him/her was careful and deliberate," she said. "The Dental School has well-established procedures that protect a student's due process rights before she is dismissed from an academic program."
Cunningham said the University has legal insurance that will pay for them.
The $320,990 will be divided into approximately $307,088 for legal fees to Zwick's attorneys — which is near the $309,388 that the attorneys originally requested — and the remaining $13,902 will be used for other costs.
After the University dismissed Zwick, she was unable to enter other dental programs even though before attending the University of Michigan's School of Dentistry she was accepted into eight other dental schools. She is currently working toward a master's degree in speech pathology at Eastern Michigan University.
Former officer files federal suit against city, police
By CORTNEY CASEY
Sterling Heights Sentry
February 25, 2009A former Sterling Heights Animal Control officer who alleges she was fired and wrongly prosecuted after reporting a co-worker for sexual harassment is taking her claims to U. S. District Court.In a seven-count civil complaint filed via attorney Deborah Gordon late last month, Ann Marie Rogers alleges malicious prosecution, abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violation of civil and constitutional rights.
At the crux of the case is Rogers' assertion that former Police Chief David Vinson, current Chief Michael Reese and Lt.
Luke Riley conspired to bring criminal charges against her "knowing full well there was no probable cause to believe a crime had been committed." Rogers is requesting compensatory, exemplary and punitive damages, each in excess of $75,000.
This isn't the first legal matter pitting Rogers against her former employer. Another civil case, launched against Vinson and Sterling Heights in September 2007, is currently pending in Macomb County Circuit Court.
That suit, alleging violations of Michigan's Whistleblower Protection Act and Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, seeks compensatory and exemplary damages, along with lost wages and benefits, upwards of $25,000.
At press time, court dockets listed a March 4 pretrial conference and a March 11 trial date for the Circuit Court action.
Both cases arose out of circumstances surrounding contact between Rogers and a married male co-worker two years ago.
According to Gordon, Rogers notified superiors in May 2007 that the co-worker was sexually harassing, stalking and threatening her following the conclusion of a brief affair.
Gordon alleges police officials launched an investigation into the issue that never yielded any results, and attempted to interfere when Rogers sought a personal protection order against the colleague, who resigned after being suspended in June 2007.
Rogers claims police investigators mocked her while questioning her about the harassment allegations.
In July 2007, Vinson reportedly suspended Rogers with pay pending the results of an internal investigation into whether she'd abused the department's animal euthanasia policy. She was terminated a month later.
Hired in December 2003, Rogers said she sought licensing in 2006 for administering euthanasia drugs because she was dismayed by the department's prior practices for handling suffering animals. She said she was the only staffer to receive the certification, finalized in May 2007.
Police officials claimed Rogers acted improperly by euthanizing a dying dog in her personal vehicle, but they could never pinpoint how those actions violated policy, Gordon argued.
In January 2008, Rogers was arrested for controlled substance use of a non-narcotic, related to the euthanasia allegations. In October, Judge Stephen Sierawski of 41-A District Court dismissed the charges without prejudice, meaning prosecutors could resurrect them in the future.
Assistant Prosecutor Dana Goldberg, who appeared on behalf of the Macomb County Prosecutor's Office the day the charges were dismissed, said the office had no comment on the case. Marc Thomas, Rogers' criminal attorney, said he had not heard anything recently about prosecutors pursuing further action.
Rogers operates a nonprofit animal rescue organization, No Place Like Home Rescue of Michigan, and had a temporary parttime job in Oakland County, but said she's struggled to secure full- time work due to the blemish on her record.
"I loved my job," she said.
"That was really a devastating blow, to be fired and then trashed in the manner I was." Gordon claims officers harbored a "personal vendetta" against Rogers and used "the police powers of the state to punish her." "To me, this is just a classic example of taxpayer dollars being thrown out a window because of the cowboy conduct of these idiots in the Sterling Heights Police Department," she said.
In a written response to the Circuit Court case, filed in December 2007, attorneys from O'Reilly Rancilio, the city's legal counsel, denied any violation of the Whistleblower Protection Act and Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act.
In the documents, attorneys contest Rogers account of the events, disputing her characterization of her job responsibilities, the nature of the criminal charges against her, and whether she followed city policy for reporting sexual harassment, though they do not elaborate.
The city's response notes that Rogers failed to appear at multiple pre-disciplinary meetings leading up to her dismissal. Rogers stated in her suit that she declined to attend on the advice of her lawyer.
In a written statement issued in the wake of the federal suit's filing, City Attorney Jeff Bahorski said the city never acted improperly.
"The city's actions in both the disciplinary proceeding and misdemeanor criminal prosecution were guided solely by the plaintiff's misconduct and were appropriate in all respects," he wrote. "It's unfortunate that the plaintiff is now attempting to use litigation to shift the responsibility for her employment misconduct to the city." City Council formally received.
Fired police officer settles suit with city
By ANN ZANIEWSKI
Of The Oakland Press
February 10, 2009KEEGO HARBOR – A man who said he was fired from the Keego Harbor police department for speaking out about things happening in his community has settled his lawsuit with the city for $150,000.
Gene Kind's attorney said he's thrilled. "This is a good day for Gene and for the truth, and, really, for the First Amendment," said Sarah Prescott, an attorney for the Bloomfield Hills firm of Deborah L. Gordon, PLC.
Kind filed a federal lawsuit last fall accusing the city, the police department, Mayor Sid Rubin and City Manager Dale Stuart of violating his free speech rights and not upholding a promise that he would be hired as a police officer.
According to the suit, Kind was promised by a former police chief that he would be hired as a police officer when he returned home from his latest military tour of duty in Iraq if he paid for and successfully completed police academy training.
Kind went through the academy and was hired June 6. He was told he could no longer attend City Council meetings.
Kind previously spoke at meetings about his concerns over how a new shopping plaza affected traffic on his street, alleged preferential policing of lakefront property where Rubin lives and other public safety issues.
Keego Harbor Police Sgt. Dan Reynolds fired Kind on June 9. On June 11, Kind tried to reassure City Manager Dale Stuart that he would not speak at future council meetings but was told his "wife's" actions were also a problem, according to the complaint. Kind's longtime girlfriend, Francoise Moreau, has also spoken at public meetings.
Kind’s attorneys argued that he was fired in retaliation for speaking publicly about his positions on community issues that conflicted with the opinions of those in power.
The parties recently settled, with Kind receiving $150,000, about a third of which went to his attorneys.
"Six figures speak for themselves," Prescott said, adding that the amount "tells you a lot about what they (the city) thought they were going to face in court."
Tom Ryan, the city's attorney, did not immediately return a message.
Rubin, in faxed statements to The Oakland Press, said the city's insurance carrier recommended the settlement in light of the extensive costs involved in preparing for a litigating such a case. Rubin emphasized that the money was paid out by the city’s insurance carrier and that the payment was not an admission of liability.
"The facts and circumstances of this incident are an isolated incident and will have no adverse reflection on the general governance of the city," Rubin said in the statement.
Judges seal Monaghan's candid notes
BY BRIAN DICKERSON
FREE PRESS COLUMNIST
January 14, 2009With Detroit's text-messaging scandal still fresh in the public's memory, it's hard to believe that any Michigan judge would seal court documents merely because their disclosure might embarrass a high-profile defendant and his friends.
But that's just what Michigan's second-highest court appears to have done in a whistle-blower lawsuit brought against Tom Monaghan, the pizza magnate turned Christian legal crusader.
In a one-paragraph order issued last Friday, three state Court of Appeals judges voted to seal a court document that included excerpts from handwritten notes Monaghan's lawyers provided to plaintiffs in the whistle-blower case.
The order, which says only that "there is good cause for suppression" of the notes, appears to violate the court's own rules, which require judges to specify the reasons for any order to seal court documents.
Onward Christian litigants
Monaghan used the $1-billion proceeds from the sale of his Domino's Pizza empire to found Ave Maria College and Ave Maria School of Law. He also is one of the nation's most generous Republican benefactors. Since the mid-1990s, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, he has donated more than a quarter million dollars to GOP candidates and causes.
Last October, three of the Catholic professors Monaghan recruited to help launch his law school sued the school and its founder, alleging they'd been lured with false promises and were later unlawfully dismissed. Among other allegations, the plaintiffs maintain they were fired in retaliation for raising questions about Ave Maria's operations with both the American Bar Association and Attorney General Mike Cox.
Washtenaw Circuit Judge Melinda Morris has repeatedly ordered Monaghan to turn over hundreds of pages of Monaghan's handwritten notes to the professors' attorney, Deborah Gordon.
Monaghan's lawyer, Karl Fink, has produced some of the notes but declined to furnish others on grounds that their disclosure would violate his client's privacy.
In his own hand
Fink didn't return my calls Tuesday. But in a court filing, he said the notes "detailed not only Monaghan's impressions and thoughts for various public events he attends, but also his relationships with others, who are not parties to this litigation, and the events that they attend, and, potentially, their political and religious associations."
The order sealing a legal brief in which Gordon quoted some of Monaghan's notes was signed by state Court of Appeals Judges Richard Bandstra, Joel Hoekstra and Jane Beckering. Bandstra and Hoekstra are Republicans.
Bandstra declined comment Tuesday when I asked him on what grounds he and his colleagues based their decision to seal Gordon's brief.
But Herschel Fink, a prominent First Amendment lawyer who represents the Free Press in the text messaging case, called the order outrageous. And I'm as curious as he is to know why the court was willing to ignore its own rules (and the public interest in court proceedings) to shield a Republican VIP from embarrassment.
ARCHIVES | 2007 & 2008 Media Coverage - Click here
