Columns

Miller Canfield has named Matthew P. Allen the recipient of the firm’s 2026 Seryak Award, an internal honor recognizing outstanding pro bono service and commitment to ensuring access to justice.

Miller Canfield has named Matthew P. Allen the recipient of the firm’s 2026 Seryak Award, an internal honor recognizing outstanding pro bono service and commitment to ensuring access to justice.

Established in 2015, the Seryak Award honors the legacy of Richard J. Seryak, an employment lawyer and litigator at Miller Canfield for nearly 40 years. Seryak was committed to helping individuals without resources access the legal assistance they needed and set a standard for professional excellence, client service, and dedication to pro bono and community engagement.

Allen’s pro bono work reflects that legacy in both impact and leadership. Recently, he helped lead a federal civil rights trial on behalf of a Michigan Department of Corrections prisoner alleging assault and battery under Michigan law and excessive force under the Eighth Amendment

In addition to individual representation, Allen has also played a role in supporting the broader legal community. As an officer of the Eastern District of Michigan Chapter of the Federal Bar Association, he led negotiations related to an organizational separation from the national FBA, a multi-year effort designed to preserve and strengthen programming and resources relied on by the federal bench and bar for decades.

“The longer I practice law, the more stewardship I feel for our system of justice, the people who rely on it, and the people who make it function,” Allen said. “Pro bono work allows us to put that stewardship into action, whether we’re helping individuals who would otherwise go without legal representation or supporting the institutions that protect access to justice.”

Allen is also active in civic and professional leadership at the national, state, and local levels. He serves in leadership roles with the American Bar Association, State Bar of Michigan, Oakland County Bar Association, Oakland County Bar Foundation, Detroit Bar Association, and the Eastern District of Michigan Bar Association. He also serves on the board of Leadership Oakland, a leadership incubator for Southeast Michigan professionals across sectors.

•            •            •

Dawda PLC is pleased to announce that Edward C. Dawda and Marc K. Salach have been recognized in Legal 500’s inaugural US Elite rankings for Corporate and M&A in Detroit.

Dawda, a founding member of the firm, brings decades of experience advising clients on complex mergers and acquisitions, corporate reorganizations, and sophisticated financing transactions. He serves as counsel to public and private entities nationwide. 

Salach, a member of the firm, concentrates his practice on corporate structuring, mergers and acquisitions, private equity transactions, and tax planning. He provides counsel to clients ranging from closely held businesses to automotive dealerships, guiding them through complex ownership transitions, financing arrangements, and regulatory compliance matters.

•            •            •

Foley & Lardner LLP partner John Birmingham was announced as an inductee to Michigan Lawyers Weekly’s Hall of Fame.

Birmingham is a trial, arbitral, and appellate attorney and business advisor who guides clients through labor and employment, trade secret and noncompetition, and investigations and crisis management issues. He is the former chair of Foley’s national Labor & Employment Practice and a former member of the firm’s Management Committee.

•            •            •

Clark Hill PLC recently announced that business, technology, and intellectual property litigators Zachary Moen, Daniel Grossman, and Adam Rosenberg,  formerly of ZVMLaw, have joined the firm’s Detroit office.

“Clark Hill’s global and national presence and depth of skill is very attractive to us and to our clients,” said Moen. “We are excited to be able to offer Clark Hill’s breadth of practice areas and enhanced geographic reach to our existing clients, and to offer our experience to Clark Hill’s existing clients.”

Moen represents clients in complex business, technology, and intellectual property disputes and helps clients select, protect, and enforce their intellectual property portfolios. He has more than 20 years of experience providing trusted legal counsel to clients and has served as in-house counsel to both international and family-owned businesses. Moen is a graduate of  Wheaton College (Massachusetts) and Loyola University Chicago School of Law.

Grossman is legal counsel to clients ranging from entrepreneurs and startups to large global companies. He regularly represents clients in federal and state courts in complex litigation matters, including IP litigation, contract disputes, and disputes between shareholders and other business owners. Grossman received his B.A. from Northwestern University and his law degree from the University of Michigan Law School.

Rosenberg provides legal counsel to clients ranging from entrepreneurs and nonprofits to large global companies. He represents clients in federal and state courts in complex litigation matters and regularly advises on compliance, antitrust investigations and other critical issues. Rosenberg graduated from the University of Michigan Law School and received his B.A. from Swarthmore College.

•            •            •

Chelsea Pasquali, an associate at Brooks Kushman, has been named a Leadership Council on Legal Diversity (LCLD) Fellow for 2025. The LCLD Fellows Program offers high-potential, mid-career attorneys from diverse backgrounds at LCLD Member organizations the opportunity to develop leadership skills and build meaningful relationships within the legal profession.

Pasquali is an intellectual property litigation attorney at Brooks Kushman, where she represents Fortune 500 corporations, small businesses, and individuals in complex patent, trademark, trade dress, unfair competition, and copyright disputes. She counsels clients on IP enforcement strategies and has experience representing trademark owners in opposition and cancellation proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, as well as litigation in state and federal courts and before the Michigan Court of Appeals. 

Pasquali earned her law degree from the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law and her Bachelor of Arts from Eastern Michigan University. She has been recognized by Michigan Lawyers Weekly as an “Up & Coming Lawyer” and by Super Lawyers and Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch for her professional achievements in intellectual property law.

•            •            •

Robert S. Bick, a shareholder with Williams, Williams, Rattner, & Plunkett (WWRP), has been included in the Tier 1 category in Corporate/Mergers & Acquisitions in the just-released Legal 500 U.S. Elite regional listing. Making his debut on the Legal 500 U.S. Elite, Bick is one of only nine attorneys to be listed in the Tier 1 corporate/M & A category in his geographic region. 

As co-chair of WWRP’s Corporate Practice Group, Bick has closed more than $3 billion in M&A transactions, including more than 150 transactions for private equity firms. Historical highlights include serving as M&A counsel to Compuware in numerous domestic and international transactions and as legal counsel to Compuware’s C-Suite executives during its sale to BMC Software in a $2 billion transaction. Bick also served as co-counsel to the owners of the Detroit Pistons in connection with the team’s sale to Platinum Equity.   

Bick’s practice focuses on corporate law, mergers and acquisitions, and business transactions. With 40 years as an attorney, he counsels and represents public and private companies, entrepreneurs, venture capital and private equity groups, boards of directors and business owners on matters related to corporate law, mergers and acquisitions, divestitures, private placements, private equity, securities, tax, commercial and private lending, corporate governance and related business law matters. 

The Legal 500 U.S. Elite acknowledgement follows Bick’s inclusion on the Crain’s Detroit Business 2025 list of Notable Leaders in Mergers & Acquisitions. Additionally, he was named to Michigan Lawyers Weekly 2024 list of Go To Lawyers in Business Transactions. Other career accolades include Corporate Law Lawyer of the Year by The Best Lawyers in America®; M&A Attorney of the Year by the Association for Corporate Growth; Dealmaker of the Year by the M&A Advisor; and a Leader in the Law by Michigan Lawyers Weekly. 

Bick has been recognized on the annual list of Best Lawyers in America® since 2019, Michigan Super Lawyers since 2007, and is a multi-year honoree on the DBusiness Top Lawyers list.

Active in the business and legal communities and civic affairs, Bick is a member of the Detroit chapter of Association for Corporate Growth (ACG), where he has served on the programs committee, as a judge for the ACG Cup Competition at the University of Michigan Ross School of Business, and as co-chair for the M&A All Stars Awards. Bick has also served as a multi-year judge for the Transactional Law Competition at the University of Michigan Law School. His civic activities include membership in the American Jewish Committee, where he served on the board of directors for the Detroit Regional Office, and the Anti-Defamation League, where he also served on the board of directors of the Detroit Regional Office. Bick has also provided multi-year service as a mentor to at-risk children at Haven of Oakland County through his participation on the ACG Cares committee and is general counsel and secretary for the McDonald Agape Foundation.

Bick earned a law degree from the University of Michigan Law School and a B.B.A. from the University of Michigan Stephen M. Ross School of Business.
————————
To submit an announcement for the next Legal People section, e-mail: editor@legalnews.com.

Cold weather can create misery.
Avoidance of what is painful makes life more painful.
To focus on avoiding this cold weather imprisons me.

Cold weather can create misery.

Avoidance of what is painful makes life more painful.

To focus on avoiding this cold weather imprisons me.

To accept this cold weather creates an internal freedom inside of me.

When I allow myself to feel what is present inside of me, I acquire freedom and wisdom.

Every moment well embraced becomes a positive journey into emotional and spiritual freedom.

Happiness results when I stop avoiding what is painful in each present moment.

The blessing of sharing my feelings with someone bring me closer to myself and God.

Pain is not be be avoided but simply embraced.

I can’t heal what I refuse to feel.

Each moment is mean to be a positive experience of a loving God.

There are no unimportant moments in life.

We are all in this life together with each other and with God.

I will always be grateful for this journey.
————————
Fred Cavaiani is a licensed marriage & family therapist and limited licensed psychologist with a private practice in Troy. He is the founder of Marriage Growth Center. He conducts numerous programs for groups throughout Michigan. Cavaiani is associate editor and contributing writer for Human Development Magazine. His column in the Legal News runs every other Tuesday. He can be reached at 248-362-3340. His e-mail address is Fredcavi@yahoo.com.

With 2026 underway, many Michigan business owners are feeling something they have not felt in a while: a bit of breathing room. Supply chains have steadied. The pace of change feels less frantic. Yet from where I sit, advising mid-sized Michigan companies day in and day out, this is not a year to get comfortable. The risks have not disappeared; they have simply become quieter and more complex.

By Zana Tomich

With 2026 underway, many Michigan business owners are feeling something they have not felt in a while: a bit of breathing room. Supply chains have steadied. The pace of change feels less frantic. Yet from where I sit, advising mid-sized Michigan companies day in and day out, this is not a year to get comfortable. The risks have not disappeared; they have simply become quieter and more complex.

The businesses that struggle in 2026 will not be caught off guard by a brand-new law. More often, problems grow out of familiar issues that were left unattended for too long. The companies that do well tend to be the ones that treat legal planning as part of running the business, not something reserved for emergencies.

Artificial Intelligence Is Now a Business Risk, Not a Tech Experiment

Most Michigan companies I work with are already using artificial intelligence in some form, often without calling it that. It shows up in hiring platforms, marketing tools, customer communications, and internal drafting. As 2026 unfolds, the legal conversation around artificial intelligence has shifted. The question is no longer whether businesses are using it, but whether they understand how it is being used and who is responsible when something goes wrong.

Michigan does not yet have a stand-alone artificial intelligence statute, but federal guidance is increasingly shaping how courts and regulators evaluate automated decision-making, particularly in employment and consumer-facing contexts. At the same time, contracts are quietly doing much of the regulating. Vendors and customers are asking for representations about artificial intelligence use, data sources, human oversight, and cybersecurity safeguards. Under Michigan law, those 
provisions are likely to be enforced as written, which means companies need to be comfortable with the commitments they are making before they sign.

Data Privacy Expectations Are Catching Up with Smaller Companies

Many Michigan business owners still assume data privacy is an issue only for large technology companies. That assumption is becoming riskier each year. As additional state privacy laws take effect across the country, Michigan businesses can find themselves subject to new requirements simply by collecting data from customers or users who live elsewhere.
Michigan’s Identity Theft Protection Act has been in place for years, but expectations around compliance have matured. Regulators increasingly expect written policies, documented safeguards, and a clear plan for responding to a breach. 

Informal practices that once seemed reasonable can look careless when reviewed after an incident, especially when multiple states are involved.

Worker Classification and Remote Work Remain High-Risk Areas

Few areas create more avoidable exposure for Michigan companies than worker classification. In 2026, both federal agencies and Michigan regulators continue to scrutinize independent contractor arrangements, particularly in professional services, logistics, and remote roles. The analysis remains highly fact-specific, and mistakes often lead to cascading consequences that include wage claims, tax exposure, and benefit issues.

Remote and hybrid work have added another layer of complexity. Wage and hour compliance, overtime tracking, and expense reimbursement obligations do not disappear simply because work happens off-site. Many employee handbooks and compensation structures no longer reflect how work is actually performed, which can leave well-intentioned employers exposed.

Michigan Business Transitions Are Accelerating

Across Michigan, more owners are beginning to think seriously about what comes next. For some, that means a sale. For others, it means an internal buyout or a generational transition. Private equity interest remains strong, but buyers are far less forgiving of informality than they once were. Gaps in governance, undocumented processes, and weak cybersecurity practices tend to surface quickly during due diligence and often affect value.

Even companies that are not actively marketing themselves benefit from thinking like a future buyer. Clear decision-making authority, clean financial practices, and documented systems tend to make businesses easier to operate and more resilient, regardless of whether a transaction occurs.

Nonprofits and Mission-Driven Entities Face More Oversight

Michigan nonprofits and organizations that work closely with them are operating under increased scrutiny in 2026. The Michigan Attorney General’s Charitable Trust Section continues to focus on governance practices, conflicts of interest, and fundraising transparency, while the Internal Revenue Service remains attentive to board independence and compliance.

At the same time, more organizations are exploring benefit corporations and other hybrid structures to balance mission and sustainability. These models can be effective, but only when the underlying governance documents clearly define roles, authority, and fiduciary obligations.

Final Thought

What unites these trends is accountability. Regulators, customers, employees, and business partners are asking better questions and expecting clearer answers. Michigan law has long favored preparation over improvisation, and that remains true in 2026.

Companies that integrate legal foresight into everyday decision-making, rather than treating counsel as a last resort, will be best positioned to manage risk, protect value, and grow with confidence.

2026 is already underway. The opportunity now is to mind your Michigan business before someone else is forced to do it for you.
————————
Zana Tomich is a co-founding partner of Detroit-based Dalton & Tomich PLC, where she serves privately held businesses and nonprofits, often in a general counsel capacity. 

The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, 605 U.S. 303 (2025) not only resolved a longstanding circuit split over the evidentiary burden for majority-group plaintiffs under Title VII, but also signaled a broader shift in how courts may approach employment discrimination claims going forward.

By Erica L. Quigley 
and Adam M. Taub

The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, 605 U.S. 303 (2025) not only resolved a longstanding circuit split over the evidentiary burden for majority-group plaintiffs under Title VII, but also signaled a broader shift in how courts may approach employment discrimination claims going forward.

The Court held that members of a “majority group”— i.e., those belonging to groups that have not historically faced discrimination — no longer have a heightened evidentiary burden compared to minority groups: they need not prove “background circumstances” to support that the employer unusually discriminated against the majority.

The plaintiff (who is heterosexual) alleged that her employer violated Title VII when it denied her a promotion in favor of a homosexual female, then demoted her and replaced her in her prior position with a homosexual male. She claimed that her employer denied her the promotion and demoted her because of her heterosexual sexual orientation. While these facts would ordinarily satisfy her burden under the first step of the McDonnell Douglas framework,  under Sixth Circuit precedent, as a member of a majority group, she was required to provide additional evidence, such as statistical proof or information about the relevant decisionmaker’s protected traits. She failed to produce such evidence, leading to dismissal of the case on summary judgment.

Justice Jackson’s opinion emphasized that Title VII protects “any individual” from discrimination based on protected characteristics, regardless of whether the person belongs to a majority or minority group. The Court rejected the Sixth Circuit’s “background circumstances” rule, which had required majority-group plaintiffs to provide additional proof—such as statistical evidence or information about the protected traits the decisionmaker may have—to establish a prima facie case. The Court found this rule to be inconsistent with both the text of Title VII and its own precedent, which discourages rigid applications of the McDonnell Douglas framework.

This ruling effectively levels the playing field for all plaintiffs, removing a procedural barrier that affected only majority-group litigants. As a result, courts must now evaluate claims of discrimination based solely on whether the plaintiff can show that they suffered an adverse employment action because of a protected characteristic—without regard to group membership. This change may lead to an increase in majority-group litigants bringing claims previously characterized as reverse discrimination. It is now much easier for these litigants to meet their prima facie burden, which will likely allow numerous plaintiffs to proceed to trial who would previously have had their cases dismissed on summary judgment.

Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch, went further. In his concurrence, he argued that the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework itself lacks textual support in Title VII and should be reconsidered in a future case. He criticized the framework form creating unnecessary complexity and for fostering inconsistent standards between cases involving direct and circumstantial evidence.

Justice Thomas’s critique is not new—he has long expressed skepticism about judge-made doctrines that stray from statutory text. But in Ames, his argument gained new traction. He noted that Title VII’s plain language requires courts to determine whether there is evidence of intentional discrimination, and that the burden-shifting approach may obscure that

inquiry rather than clarify it.

If the Court were to adopt Justice Thomas’s view and eliminate the McDonnell Douglas framework, the implications would be profound:

• Simplified litigation: Plaintiffs would no longer need to navigate the three-step burden-shifting process. Instead, courts would focus directly on whether the evidence supports a finding of intentional discrimination.

• Increased judicial discretion: Without a structured framework, judges may have more latitude in evaluating the sufficiency of evidence, leading to less predictable outcomes.

• Impact on DEI programs: Justice Thomas’s concurrence may invite increased scrutiny of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Programs that appear to favor minority groups could be challenged under the now-equal evidentiary standard for majority-group plaintiffs.

• Shift in summary judgment practice: The McDonnell Douglas framework has long served as a gatekeeping tool at the summary judgment stage. Its removal could result in more cases proceeding to trial, increasing litigation costs and risks for employers.

Courts analyze employment discrimination claims under the Supreme Court’s framework outlined in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), in which the plaintiff is required to make an initial showing of discriminatory intent, after which the burden shifts to the defendant to provide a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its employment action. If the defendant makes such a showing, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to present evidence that the defendant’s proffered reason is a “pretext,” or cover, for discrimination.
————————
Erica L. Quigley is an Associate at Miller Johnson in the Employment and Labor practice group, focusing on management-side labor and employment counseling and litigation, as well as governmental legal matters. Adam M. Taub is a founding partner at Croson, Taub, & Michaels, PLLC where he specializes in all forms of workplace disputes, including wrongful termination, discrimination, harassment, whistleblower, non-compete, and wage and hour issues. This column is reprinted with permission from the Washtenaw County Bar Association newsletter Res Ipsa Loquitur.

Butzel employment law attorney Rebecca S. Davies discussed “Understanding the New Employment Laws for 2026” during a free webinar on Wednesday, January 21. The program was presented by the National Association for Business Resources (NABR) and Corp! Magazine.

Butzel employment law attorney Rebecca S. Davies discussed “Understanding the New Employment Laws for 2026” during a free webinar on Wednesday, January 21. The program was presented by the National Association for Business Resources (NABR) and Corp! Magazine.

Davies concentrates her practice primarily on employment law and commercial litigation.  Drawing on more than 30 years of experience, she advises clients on employment issues encountered in day-to-day business operations and in complex scenarios that can impact employers for years to come. 

Davies has represented and counseled employers of all sizes – from companies with two to 20,000 employees – in private and public sectors in a variety of industries.

•            •            •

Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer recently announced appointments to the following boards and commissions:

—State of Michigan Retirement Board 

Judge Leo Bowman is a retired judge, having served the 6th Circuit Court of Oakland County for fourteen years. Bowman earned a bachelor’s degree from Oakland University and a law degree from the University of Detroit School of Law. 

Bowman is reappointed as a member or retirant of the Judges Retirement System for a term commencing January 15, 2026, and expiring December 31, 2029. 

The State of Michigan Retirement Board was created by Executive Order No. 2015-13, and consolidated the State Employees’ Retirement System Board, the Judges’ Retirement System Board, and the Military Retirement Provisions. Housed in the Department of Technology, Management, and Budget, in the Office of Retirement Services, the Retirement Board provides oversight of the three systems that service nearly 88,000 active and retired employees.  

This appointment is not subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. 

—Michigan Indigent Defense Commission 

Coriann McMillen is an associate attorney at Nyman Turkish PC and is a member of the Wolverine Bar Association. McMillen was previously a staff attorney at the Neighborhood Defender Service. McMillen earned a Bachelor of Science in sociology and criminal justice from Central Michigan University and a law degree from the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law. 

McMillen is appointed to represent members nominated by state bar associations those whose primary mission or purpose is to advocate for minority interests for a term commencing January 15, 2026, and expiring April 1, 2028. McMillen succeeds Kimberly Buddin, whose term has expired. 

The Michigan Indigent Defense Commission was created as a result of efforts to improve legal representation for indigent criminal defendants. The Commission develops and oversees the implementation, enforcement, and modification of minimum standards, rules, and procedures to ensure that indigent criminal defense services providing effective assistance of counsel are delivered to all indigent adults in this state consistent with the safeguards of the United States Constitution, the State Constitution of 1963, and with the Michigan Indigent Defense Commission Act.   

This appointment is not subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. 

—Utility Consumer Participation Board 

Jeremy Orr is the director of partnerships at Earthjustice and a professor at the Michigan State University College of Law and University of Detroit Mercy School of Law. Orr earned a Bachelor of Science in human development and family studies and a law degree from the Michigan State University College of Law. 

Orr is appointed as an advocate for the interests of residential utility consumers for a term commencing January 15, 2026, and expiring January 12, 2027. Orr succeeds Sam Passmore, whose term has expired.  

The Utility Consumer Participation Board provides grants to qualified applicants that represent the interests of Michigan’s residential energy (gas, electric, and other fuel) utility customers at residential energy proceedings before the Michigan Public Service Commission. Funding is generated through annual assessments of certain regulated utility companies.    

This appointment is not subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. 

•            •            •

The Catholic Foundation of Michigan (Foundation) recently named Plunkett Cooney partner Laura L. Brownfield to its board of directors. 

The Foundation’s board members, who serve three-year terms, provide governance, strategic oversight and financial stewardship.  They guide the Foundation, which is a 501 (c)(3) non-profit organization, in its mission to inspire giving, manage endowments and help donors with charitable planning. 

Brownfield serves as the Trusts & Estates Practice Group leader of Plunkett Cooney.  In addition to 30 years of experience in estate planning and estate administration, Brownfield has experience in the areas of business and nonprofit law, counseling closely held businesses and tax-exempt organizations. 

Utilizing her in-house experience as the former general counsel of the Community Foundation for Southeast Michigan, Brownfield’s nonprofit law practice includes establishing tax-exempt organizations, providing strategic and practical business advice, ensuring compliance with federal and state laws and regulations, and navigating the intersection of business and law to protect the interests of nonprofits in carrying out their mission. 

Brownfield’s trusts and estate practice includes working with clients to develop comprehensive plans for the management of assets during their lifetimes, the protection of their assets in the event of disability, and the tax-efficient transfer of their wealth during their lifetime and upon death. She also assists individuals and families with succession planning for closely held businesses and with implementing charitable giving plans to protect their financial interests and to ensure a meaningful personal legacy for her clients. In addition, Brownfield assists fiduciaries and beneficiaries in trust and estate administration matters and in the resolution of disputes arising from the administration of wills and trusts. 

Brownfield received her law degree from Wayne State University Law School in 1995 and her undergraduate degree from Miami University in 1992.

•            •            •

Several Honigman attorneys were recognized by the Legal 500 in it’s inaugural Elite City Focus listing in Detroit for excellence in Commercial Disputes and Corporate and M&A. 

The firm congratulates the following attorneys who received this honor:

—Commercial Disputes 
   Joseph Aviv
   Raymond Henney
   Mark Stern
   I.W. Winsten

—Corporate and M&A
   Mike DuBay
   John Kanan
   Alex Parrish

•            •            •

Michigan Auto Law proudly announces that litigation attorney Alexander P. Kemp has achieved Board Certification in Truck Accident Law from the National Board of Trial Advocacy (NBTA).

With Kemp’s recent accomplishment, Michigan Auto Law is now the only law firm in Michigan with more than one board-certified trucking lawyer, and one of just three law firms in the country with multiple board-certified trucking lawyers.

Board Certification in Truck Accident Law from the National Board of Trial Advocacy (NBTA) is limited to lawyers who possess an enhanced level of skill and expertise in truck accident law and have demonstrated integrity and dedication to the interests of their clients. Lawyers must also pass a written examination that tests their proficiency, knowledge, and experience in truck accident law.

Having achieved Board Certification in Truck Accident Law, Kemp is one of only 87 lawyers throughout the entire U.S. to have Board Certification in Truck Accident Law. Kemp is also one of only two Michigan-based attorneys to have earned board-certification status. 

•            •            •

Cummings, McClorey, Davis, & Acho is pleased to announce that Jim Acho has been named an equity partner/shareholder of the firm. 

Acho joined the firm in 2000 as an associate attorney and was elected a partner of the firm in 2015. He has continuously contributed to the growth of the firm over the past 25 years and has won cases of significant import and national attention.  In 2025 Acho was awarded Michigan Lawyer’s Weekly’s Leader In The Law.

CMDA is also proud to announce that Alexander R. Karana has been selected to the 2026 Illinois Rising Stars List by Super Lawyers in the Intellectual Property practice area category. This is the third consecutive year that he has been named to the list. Karana is an Intellectual Property attorney and is admitted to practice law in Illinois and Michigan.

As a registered patent attorney, Karana’s practice centers on patent and trademark prosecution, IP strategy, technology-driven business transactions, as well as business formations and business litigation. He also brings expertise in Entertainment and Sports Law, helping athletes, musicians, and influencers protect and monetize their assets.

•            •            •

John R. Fleming, an equity partner at Giarmarco, Mullins, & Horton PC, will host four small business workshop sessions in 2026.  Fleming will present on a range of topics relevant to the Southeast Michigan business community.  Each session will include a question-and-answer segment and open discussion.

The workshops are hosted by the Macomb County Chamber of Commerce and will take place on the following dates:

• February 9 – How to Avoid Being Sued: Preventable Business Disputes

• June 24 – Protect Your Business: Non-Competes & Trade Secrets

• September 17 – Legal Mistakes Growing Businesses Make and How to Avoid Them

• December 11 – Contracts That Protect You: Clauses You Should Have in Every Contract

Additional information and registration are available on the Chamber’s website at macombcountychamber.com.

Fleming serves on the Board of Directors of the Macomb County Chamber of Commerce, the Macomb Foundation, and Macomb Advocacy for Business.  He is counsel for businesses of all sizes, litigating complex shareholder, trade secret, non-compete, and contract disputes.  His practice includes the defense of physicians and hospital systems in medical malpractice cases.  Fleming represents large financial institutions and manages a vast portfolio of commercial lending litigation.  His experience extends to constitutional law and multifaceted class action litigation.  

•            •            •

Harness IP is pleased to announce that Colette Verch has been selected to participate in the Leadership Council on Legal Diversity (LCLD) 2026 Pathfinder Program. The program supports early-career attorneys through leadership development, career strategy, and access to a broad professional network, and identifies participants as emerging leaders within the legal profession.

As an associate attorney with Harness IP in the Detroit Metro office, Verch is focused on intellectual property litigation in matters concerning trademark infringement, copyright infringement, false advertising, and patent infringement. She also practices patent prosecution, and has experience preparing and prosecuting domestic and foreign patent applications, and preparing invalidity, patentability, and freedom-to-practice opinions.

Harness also congratulates Jeremiah Foley on completing the 2025 LCLD Pathfinder Program.

Foley, also of the Detroit Metro office, devotes his time and energy to protecting his clients’ array of intellectual property rights. He uses his mechanical engineering background and previous work experience to provide efficient counseling that protects innovative ideas and hard-earned competitive advantages. His practice includes working with clients in the software, automotive, manufacturing, and mechanical industries.

Harness IP has been a member of LCLD since 2021 and remains committed to advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion within the legal profession.

This article will discuss how arbitrators, treatises, and courts have reviewed employer use of due process before imposing discipline on an employee under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The consensus is that employers should provide notice, conduct a fair and thorough investigation, and allow employees a meaningful opportunity to respond before imposing discipline.

By Lee Hornberger

Introduction

This article will discuss how arbitrators, treatises, and courts have reviewed employer use of due process before imposing discipline on an employee under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The consensus is that employers should provide notice, conduct a fair and thorough investigation, and allow employees a meaningful opportunity to respond before imposing discipline. The pertinent due process questions include:  Was the employee given a meaningful opportunity to tell the employee’s side of the story before discipline was imposed? Was there an adequate check against the possibility of an incorrect decision? Are the due process principles imbedded in the CBA?

St. Antoine, The Common Law of the Workplace (2d ed. 2005)
Concerning due process, St. Antoine, pp. 206 and 217-219, states:

“§ 6.13 Notice of Charges and Hearing 
“Just cause requires that an employee being disciplined or discharged be given notice of the charges against him or her and a meaningful opportunity to be heard. …

“§ 6.19 Remedies for Due Process Violations in General 
“When a due process guarantee of the contract (either one that is an inherent part of just cause, or one arising out of a specific contract provision) has been violated in a significant way, most arbitrators conclude that the violation will affect the degree of the penalty or other adverse employer action, and some arbitrators conclude that the violation will nullify the penalty entirely.” [Emphasis in original]

Elkouri & Elkouri, How Arbitration Works (8th ed. 2016)

Elkouri & Elkouri, p. 15-49, states, “Industrial due process … requires management to conduct a reasonable inquiry or investigation before assessing punishment.” The issue of due process and following correct procedures can impact on just cause and the amount of discipline, if any, that should be approved or imposed. Id. at 15-47 to 15-50. Arbitrators will, in many cases, refuse to uphold the employer’s action where the employer failed to fulfill some procedural requirement specified by the CBA.” Id.

Abrams, Inside Arbitration (2013)

Abrams, p. 211, states:

“… [T]he concept of “due process” is inherent in the just cause provision. 

“… [a]arbitrators prefer seeing evidence that management … offered the accused employee the opportunity to contribute before the investigation hardened into a decision. A discharge followed by an investigation obviously puts the cart before the horse. An employer need not keep an employee at work, but there is no obvious reason why it cannot suspend the employee pending investigation.”

Nolan, Labor and Employment Arbitration (1999)

Arbitrators “often overturn otherwise valid discharges where the employer has denied the employee those [due process] protections.” Nolan, pp. 205 to 206.

Federal Courts of Appeal

Federal courts have held that due process applies to “just cause” discharge cases.       Federated Dep’t Stores v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 1442, 901 F.2d 1494, 1496 (9th Cir. 1990), held that the arbitrator appropriately determined due process to be a component of good cause for discharge. Federated Dep’t Stores said,
In Chauffeurs, Local Union No. 878 v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 613 F.2d 716 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 988 … (1980), the Eighth Circuit … noted that “arbitrators have long been applying notions of ‘industrial due process’ to ‘just cause’ discharge cases.” Id. at 719. In Coca-Cola Bottling Co., the arbitrator found that despite the employee’s dishonesty, the lack of procedural fairness afforded to him by the company fell short of the just cause standard. … Coca-Cola Bottling Co. did not provide the employee an opportunity to tell his side of the story prior to termination. Drawing upon scholarly articles which studied arbitration awards, the court found that an arbitration award that interpreted just cause to include due process “drew its essence” from the agreement. Id. at 719-20. See also Super Tire Eng’r Co. v. Teamsters Local Union No. 676, 721 F.2d 121 (3rd Cir.1983) (enforcing an arbitrator’s award where employee was reinstated because he was not given a warning before his discharge for drinking alcoholic beverages during working hours), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 817 … (1984). We agree with the Third Circuit that because it is not unusual for an arbitrator to apply due process notions to just cause, the arbitrator derived his decision from the essence of the collective bargaining agreement. 

Chauffeurs, Local Union No. 878 v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 613 F.2d 716 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 988 (1980), said,

“arbitrators have long been applying notions of ‘industrial due process’ to ‘just cause’ discharge cases. As Professor Summers noted, ‘[o]n  the bare words ‘just cause’ arbitrators have built a comprehensive and relatively stable body of both substantive and procedural law.’ Summers, Individual Protection Against Unjust Dismissal: Time for a Statute, 62 Va. L. Rev. 481, 500 (1976) (footnote deleted). Professor Summers also commented that the retention of the bare ‘just cause’ language in newly negotiated agreements is an indication of the widespread acceptance of arbitrators’ due process interpretations. Id. at 505. To a similar effect are the comments of Professor Getman: To enhance its chances of winning at arbitration, a company needs to establish careful disciplinary procedures consistent with arbitration awards defining the concept of just cause. Arbitrators generally insist on equal punishment for the same offense, and they require that employees be given advance notice of company rules and a chance to explain their behavior before they are disciplined. Getman, Labor Arbitration and Dispute Resolution, 88 Yale L.J. 916, 921 (1979) … .”

Michigan Court of Appeals

An employer’s procedural violations can justify the arbitrator modifying discipline even when the underlying misconduct is proven. Michigan Association of Police v. Pontiac, 177 Mich. App. 752, 759-760 (1989), states:

“It is accepted that an arbitrator, if not specifically limited by the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, is free to fashion a remedy which considers the relative faults of the parties. See Zeviar v. Local No 2747, Airline, Aerospace Allied Employees, 733 F.2d 556 (CA 8, 1984) (employee reinstated but with only half of lost wages because she was also at fault), and Air Line Pilots Ass’n, International v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc, 632 F.2d 132 (CA 5, 1980) (reinstatement without full benefits upheld). In Brotherhood of Railway, Airline Steamship Clerks v. Kansas City Terminal Railway Co, 587 F.2d 903, 906-907 (CA 8, 1978), cert den 441 U.S. 907 …  (1979), the court, quoting Diamond v. Terminal Railway Alabama State Docks, 421 F.2d 228, 233 (CA 5, 1970), stated the test as ‘not whether the reviewing court agrees with the Board’s interpretation of the bargaining contract, but whether the remedy fashioned by the Board is rationally explainable as a logical means of furthering the aims of that contract.’ …”

Labor Arbitration Awards

Arbitrators have found that notice of charges, a fair investigation, and an opportunity to be heard are procedural due process protections inherent in the just cause standard. 

Arbitrator Creo stated at Washington Penn Plastics, Performance Products Division, 2025 LA 19 (2025),

“… the issue of notice of charges, a fair investigation of the alleged infractions, and the opportunity to be heard as due process and procedural protections inherent in the just cause standard or as mandated by the collective bargaining agreement or law. …

“Although the investigation may have been accurate in its factual findings and conclusions, and the Employer otherwise making a sound determination that just cause existed for the conduct of Grievant, the procedural requirements of the Agreement still must be followed. The Arbitrator does not find that a violation of procedural rights is harmless error or otherwise constitutes a de minimus violation. A due process violation of this nature that violates an express clause of the negotiated collective bargaining agreement requires remedial action.”

Arbitrator Goldstein indicated at State of Illinois, 136 LA 122, 129-130 (2015):

“[A]n employer’s obligation to a predisciplinary investigation is determined by context. … [T]he level of discipline involved is an important consideration … in determining whether the underlying investigation by the employer was fair and reasonable.”

United Parcel Service, 118 LA 1127, 1136 (Landau, 2003), sustained a grievance based on untimely notice where the CBA stated that the employer waived its right to discharge an employee if notice was not provided within 10 days.

Shaefer’s Ambulance Serv., 104 LA 481, 486 (Calhoun, 1995), indicates,

“Procedural fairness requires an employer to conduct a full and fair investigation of the circumstances surrounding an employee’s conduct and to provide an opportunity for him to offer denials, explanations, or justifications that are relevant before the employer makes its final decision, before its position becomes polarized.” 

Arbitrators have declined to set aside discipline when a grievant suffers no prejudice following an employer’s non-compliance with procedural requirements. Jackson Memorial Hospital, 126 LA 723, 727 (Abrams, 2009) (declining to set aside discipline despite the employer’s failure to satisfy CBA deadlines because “there was no prejudice to the Grievant or the Union by the modest delay”); Argosy Gaming Co., 110 LA 540 (Fowler, 1998) (declining to overturn discharge where there was no showing of prejudice to the union or to the grievant by the absence of timely notice).  

Remedy

The arbitrator has the authority to grant an appropriate remedy when due process safeguards have been violated. Elkouri & Elkouri, pp. 18-1 to 18-14. Abrams, pp. 169 to 184.
St. Antoine states at pp. 218-220:

“§ 6.20 Alternative Sanctions Against Employers for Due Process Violations 

“(1)    When a specific due process guarantee of the contract has been violated in a significant way, but the relevant law or the contract does not permit an otherwise appropriate make-whole remedy for the employee, an alternative sanction will be imposed on the employer. 

“(2)    When a specific due process guarantee of the contract has been violated, but the violation is insufficient to affect the substantive rights of the employee in a significant way, an alternative sanction may be imposed on the employer.

“Comment: 

“This section recognizes that positive contractual obligations are not to be ignored, even when their direct enforcement is blocked by a relevant law, or when a make-whole remedy is inappropriate because the due process violation was not sufficient to deny the employee substantial justice, or when there is a limitation on the arbitrator’s powers. The theory is that when the parties provide for a positive obligation, rather than hortatory or aspirational language, they intend to have that obligation enforceable through sanctions. In some instances, the violation is de minimis and does not require an alternative employer sanction.” [Emphasis in original]

A split decision such as reinstatement with less than full back pay or some “back pay” without reinstatement, “… is not a compromise, but a clear reflection of the competing interests of the parties in the context of the case.” Abrams, p. 181.

When the parties agree to submit a matter to arbitration, they invest the arbitrator with discretion to resolve their dispute in a manner which is appropriate under the circumstances. 

Conclusion

Arbitral authority, judicial precedent, and treatises discuss the principle that due process is part of the just cause standard. To meet the just cause standard, employers should provide notice, conduct a thorough investigation, and allow employees a meaningful opportunity to tell their side of the story before imposing discipline. Depending on the CBA language, when procedural safeguards are ignored, arbitrators can reduce or overturn the discipline. 
————————
Lee Hornberger is a senior member of Professional Resolution Experts of Michigan (PREMi), a Michigan group of seasoned, invitation-only arbitrators and mediators. He is a member of the National Academy of Arbitrators and a Diplomate Member of The National Academy of Distinguished Neutrals. He is a former chair of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Section of the State Bar of Michigan, Editor Emeritus of The Michigan Dispute Resolution Journal, former member of the State Bar’s Representative Assembly, former president of the Grand Traverse-Leelanau-Antrim Bar Association, and former Chair of the Traverse City Human Rights Commission. He has received the Distinguished Service Award from the State Bar’s ADR Section in recognition of significant contributions to the field of dispute resolution. He has received the George Bashara Award from the ADR Section in recognition of exemplary service. He has received Hero of ADR Awards from the ADR Section.  He earned his B.A. and J.D. from the University of Michigan and his LL.M. in Labor Law from Wayne State University. His website is www.leehornberger.com.