This page looks plain and unstyled because you're using a non-standard compliant browser. To see it in its best form, please upgrade to a browser that supports web standards. It's free and painless.

Steven H. Schwartz & Associates, P.L.C.

Home Page | MAIN | Albums | Admin

Michigan Codifies Garrity Rights for Law Enforcement Officers

Schipper | 15 March, 2007 14:54

On December 29, 2006, Michigan enacted M.C.L. 15.391, codifying the protection of involuntary statements made by law enforcement officers. Such protection has been in place since the Supreme Court's ruling in Garrity v. State of N.J., 385 U.S. 493 (1967). In Garrity, the Court ruled that public sector employees are in fact under duress and deprived of free choice when asked to either incriminate themselves or forfeit their jobs. Therefore, the use of such statements is prohibited in a subsequent criminal proceeding as involuntary self-incrimination.

 (More)

Employment Law , Labor Law :: Comment (0) :: Permalink :: Trackbacks (283)

Clarification of Garg and Evidence of Discrimination Occurring Outside the Statute of Limitations

Schipper | 15 March, 2007 14:50

Prior to the 2005 decision of Garg v Macomb County Cmty Mental Health Servs, Michigan subscribed to the continuing violations theory of discriminatory acts. 472 Mich 263 (2005). This meant that aggrieved employees could file a claim for discriminatory or retaliatory acts that occurred beyond the three-year statute of limitations by showing them to be related to acts that occurred within the statute of limitations, so as to create a pattern of harassment. The Court in Garg ruled that continuing violations theory no longer exists under Michigan law but left open whether acts falling outside the statute of limitations may be used as background in support of claims made within the statute of limitations. (More)

Employment Law :: Comment (0) :: Permalink :: Trackbacks (162)
Valid XHTML 1.0 Strict and CSS.
Powered by pLog
Design by Book of Styles