What

Where

Trusted Across Michigan

2,500

+

Verified Listings

Built for Clients & Attorneys

Every Practice Area

Your Search Starts Here:
Michigan Top Lawyers makes it simple to find the right attorney.

Our Top Rated Lawyers

Popular Exclusive Listings In Our Directory

The Elder Care Firm

The Elder Care Firm

Be the first one to rate!

860 W Grand River Ave

Practice Areas : Elder Law

Seva Law Firm

Be the first one to rate!

1050 Wilshire Suite 335 Troy, MI 48084

Practice Areas : Insurance

Giarmarco, Mullins & Horton, P.C.

Giarmarco, Mullins & Horton, P.C.

Be the first one to rate!

101 West Big Beaver Road 10th Floor Columbia Center Troy, Michigan 48084

Practice Areas : Commercial Real Estate

Freel Professional Corp

Freel Professional Corp

Be the first one to rate!

540 West Lake St., Suite 2 Tawas City, MI 48763

Practice Areas : Admiralty and Maritime Law

Davis Law Group PLLC

Davis Law Group PLLC

Be the first one to rate!

27600 Northwestern Hwy Ste 215 Southfield, MI 48034

Practice Areas : Criminal Law

Kathryn Wayne-Spindler & Associates

Kathryn Wayne-Spindler & Associates

Be the first one to rate!

425 West Huron Street, Suite 120 Milford, MI 48381

Practice Areas : Criminal Law

How it Works

It’s easy to find and book a lawyer and also to share your experience.

Find Your Lawyer

Find Your Lawyer

Explore top Michigan lawyers by city, practice area, and reviews.

Contact a Lawyer

Contact a Lawyer

Connect with trusted Michigan attorneys for fast, reliable help.

Review A Lawyer

Review A Lawyer

Rate Michigan lawyers and guide others to the best legal support.

Browse Lawyers

Find the Michigan Attorney for YOU!

Real Reviews from Clients

Across Michigan

Michigan Legal News

U.S. Census Bureau to hold virtual Tribal Consultation on Oct. 2 on proposed rule that eliminates race and ethnicity questions from decennial census questionnaire – Turtle Talk

U.S. Census Bureau to hold virtual Tribal Consultation on Oct. 2 on proposed rule that eliminates race and ethnicity questions from decennial census questionnaire – Turtle Talk

The proposed rule would prohibit the collection of data on race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation on the short form decennial questionnaire or any questionnaire used for the enumeration of the population. It would also count only U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents for congressional apportionment. §70.2 Restrictions on the inclusion of certain demographic questions.(a) No question about race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation shall appear on the short form decennial census questionnaire or any questionnaire used for the enumeration of the population. The preamble to the proposed rule also refers to “[s]ubstantial doubts about the meaning, significance, and impact of attempting to categorize persons by race and ethnicity” that have “been reflected in shifts in the law.” This statement is supplemented by a footnote 11 that states: 11 Questions about tribal membership are not necessarily questions about race and/or ethnicity. See Constitutionality of Race-Based Department of Education Programs, 49 Op. O.L.C. ll(Dec. 2, 2025), available at https://www.justice.gov/olc/media/1421576/dl (‘‘Current equal-protection doctrine recognizes a difference between preferences based on Indian ethnicity and those based on affiliation (often membership or citizenship) in a federally recognized tribe.’’); Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 551–55 (1974) (discussing the ‘‘unique legal status of Indian tribes’’ and explaining how certain preferences for members of Indian tribes are not the same as preferences for discrete racial groups). The proposed rule doesn’t say whether a tribal affiliation question could survive the proposed §70.2, but it’s worth addressing in comments to the agency. If adopted, the proposed rule would make Native people less visible in federal data, making redistricting analysis and voting rights enforcement more difficult. It would also cause Tribes to have less reliable demographic data for purposes of federal trust and treaty obligations and self-government, and it would make it more difficult for Tribes to plan for housing, health care, schools, transportation, language services, and emergencies. Relevant Dates Virtual Tribal Consultation on October 2, 2026 from 3:00 – 4:30 pm ET. Tribal leaders and representatives can register here. Note: The Bureau only gave two weeks’ notice for this consultation instead of its standard 30 days. Public Comment Period deadline: October 13, 2026. Comments can be submitted here Extended Tribal Comment Period deadline: November 2, 2026. Additional resources Proposed Rule: Decennial Census of the Population of Americans; Proposed Residence Criteria and Proposed Regulations for Demographic Questions Dear Tribal Leader Letter What Proposed 2030 Census Changes Could Mean for Native Communities, NARF, Sept. 29, 2026 Source link

September 30, 2026

Court declines to authorize notice in FLSA case

Court declines to authorize notice in FLSA case

In brief Michigan federal court denied court-facilitated notice in an FLSA overtime lawsuit against Autoneum North America. Plaintiffs failed to show a “strong likelihood” that potential opt-in employees were similarly situated. Different plant policies, collective bargaining agreements, and overtime calculations created individualized issues. The court found deficiencies in the plaintiffs’ declarations and evidence supporting a companywide timekeeping policy. Plaintiffs suing their employer for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) failed to meet the “strong likelihood” standard necessary for court-facilitated notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs, the Eastern District of the U.S. District Court of Michigan has ruled. “The Named Plaintiffs did not show by a strong likelihood that potential opt-in plaintiffs are similarly situated,” U.S. District Court Judge Robert J. White wrote. “The dissimilarities across plants, and the effect those dissimilarities have on the present litigation, do not support court-facilitated notice.” The 14-page order is Glidwell, Jr. v. Autoneum North America, Inc.; MiLW No. 02-111180. Daniel I. Bryant of Bryant Legal in Columbus, Ohio, who represented the plaintiffs, did not respond to a request for comment. Neither did Toledo, Ohio attorney Elizabeth L. Bolduc of Eastman & Smith, who represented the employer. Roger Glidwell, Jr. and Amy Kelly sued Autoneum North America, which produces automobile materials, components and systems, and operates facilities throughout the United States. Glidwell worked as a maintenance technician at a facility in Bloomsburg, Penn. and Kelly worked as a mold operator in Norwalk, Ohio. They alleged that Autoneum failed to pay overtime wages in violation of the FLSA. Hourly, non-exempt employees are required to clock in and out each day using Autoneum’s timekeeping system, but mandatory work occurred prior to the scheduled “start” of their shifts (such as donning personal protective equipment and participating in pre-shift meetings) as well as after their shift ended but before they clocked out, the plaintiffs claimed. The plaintiffs asked the court for authorization to send a proposed notice and consent to join form to all potential opt-in plaintiffs, defined as “[a]ll current and former hourly, non-exempt production/manufacturing employees of [Autoneum] who worked at any of Defendant’s manufacturing/production facilities and were paid for at least 40 hours in any workweek beginning Oct. 24, 2021 and continuing through the final disposition of this case.” Autoneum objected. “Strong likelihood” not demonstrated For a district court to facilitate notice of an FLSA suit to other employees, the plaintiffs must show a “strong likelihood” that those employees are similarly situated to the plaintiffs themselves, the court explained, relying on the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Clark v. A&L Homecare and Training Ctr., LLC. While the plaintiffs argued that their evidence established a strong likelihood, the court disagreed. “[T]he Court is not convinced that the potential opt-in plaintiffs are similarly situated for purposes of facilitating notice,” the court wrote. “The Named Plaintiffs’ evidence, when compared to the identified differences in each plant’s policies, is insufficient to suggest that Autoneum had a companywide policy, implemented through the Time Rounding Policy, to underpay employees. The Court’s doubt is further compounded by certain shortcomings in the Named Plaintiffs’ evidence.” For purposes of joining an FLSA suit, whether other employees are similarly situated typically depends on whether they performed the same tasks and were subject to the same policies – as to both timekeeping and compensation – as the original plaintiffs, the court said, with factors such as the factual and employment settings of the individual plaintiffs, the different defenses to which the plaintiffs may be subject and the degree of fairness and procedural impact of facilitating notice. The plaintiffs relied primarily on declarations from Kelly and five opt-in plaintiffs, who worked at five different plants. Each stated that they had to clock in and out to keep track of their work hours, that the system was a “companywide policy or practice,” and that they performed work while clocked in but prior to the scheduled start and stop time of their shifts. They also stated that even though Autoneum recorded the exact time they clocked in and out each day, Autoneum did not pay for all of the time they were clocked in for, as the work performed prior to the start and stop time included meetings to receive work assignments, relieving the previous worker operating the machine or waiting to be relieved by the next worker. “To begin, it is not clear that employees were subject to a companywide policy that intentionally miscalculated Plaintiffs’ working hours,” the court said. “Each plant listed in the complaint used a different handbook or set calculation of work hours based on a collective bargaining agreement (CBA).” The plaintiffs “offered little evidence to rebut that each facility had its own system for calculating time worked,” the court added, finding that “there is not a strong likelihood that the underpayment was attributable to a companywide policy such that opt-in plaintiffs are similarly situated.” Further, the plaintiffs are subject to individualized defenses based on where they worked. The policies employed at the different facilities varied, the court noted, using examples of the amount of overtime the plaintiffs are entitled to, which is calculated in ways that would render recovery different for the plaintiffs involved, as well as the CBAs that set forth unique grievance procedures for plaintiffs that must be followed. “Ultimately, the availability of individualized defenses across plants cuts against court-facilitated notice,” the court said. The court also considered the fairness of authorizing notice. Thousands of employees across six plants in four different states would receive notice, which would amount to solicitation of those employees. “Here, considering the impact notice might have on the ranks of this collective action, the Court finds that Named Plaintiffs need further evidence to show that potential opt-ins are similarly situated,” the court wrote. “To grant the motion, without more, would circumvent the intended purpose of the rule set forth in Clark.” The court also pointed out “some notable deficiencies” in the plaintiffs’ evidence that weighed against a finding of court-facilitated notice, including that two of the declarants ended their employment over three years before the filing of the complaint (meaning their claims fell outside of the notice period) while another declarant was also an opt-in plaintiff in a different FLSA action. That left the plaintiffs with just four declarations across the six identified plants in support of their position. While there is no minimum number of declarations needed to satisfy the strong likelihood standard, “the declarations on their own are insufficient to meet the standard outlined by Clark,” the court held. “So the fact that only four are proper for consideration further weakens Plaintiffs’ position. Without more, the Court is not persuaded that this practice was a pervasive companywide policy such that there is a strong likelihood similarly situated opt-in plaintiffs require notice.” The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion. Source link

September 30, 2026

Proposed Evidence Rule Would Put Tribal Records on Equal Footing and Could Ease Proof of Indian Status in Federal Prosecutions – Turtle Talk

Proposed Evidence Rule Would Put Tribal Records on Equal Footing and Could Ease Proof of Indian Status in Federal Prosecutions – Turtle Talk

Russell Means shakes hands with Assistant Attorney General Kent Frizzell, father of Judge Gregory Frizzell of the Northern District of Oklahoma, as AIM signs a treaty to end the occupation of Wounded Knee; National Guardian Photographs; PHOTOS 213; box 9; folder 26; Tamiment Library/Robert F. Wagner Labor Archives, New York University. The federal judiciary has proposed amending Federal Rule of Evidence 902(1) to add “a federally recognized Indian Tribe or Nation” to the governments whose sealed and signed public documents are self-authenticating. The sovereignty argument is simple. Rule 902 already covers the United States, states, territories, political subdivisions, and even the former Panama Canal Zone. The Advisory Committee saw “no reason to differentiate” Tribes and Nations, and its proposed Committee Note says the amendment recognizes Tribal sovereignty and would conserve Tribal officials’ resources. Eight Tribes of the 574 contacted for comments responded to the Committee’s outreach, and all supported the amendment. Their comments emphasized sovereign parity, the unfairness of treating Tribal government records differently from those of other sovereigns, and the burden of requiring Tribal officials to provide extra authentication for routine official records. But the present push for the amendment is also tied to the post-McGirt expansion of federal Indian country criminal prosecutions in Oklahoma. Judge Gregory Frizzell of the Northern District of Oklahoma revived the proposal in 2024, and DOJ then advocated the amendment in part to address “inefficiencies and proof problems” in cases requiring proof of the Indian status of defendants or victims. That matters because prosecutors recently lost convictions in a handful of cases after problems admitting evidence of Indian status. But those cases didn’t necessarily turn on issues that the proposed amendment to Rule 902 would address. The Federal Defenders have voiced opposition to the proposed amendment. One concern they’ve highlighted is a scenario involving a non-Indian defendant prosecuted under the General Crimes Act for an offense against an Indian victim. Such a defendant may have no personal knowledge of the victim’s Indian status and little ability to investigate the relevant underlying records. Assistant Federal Public Defender Jami Johnson (Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma) argues that the amendment could, “as a practical matter,” function like an irrebuttable presumption on that element. The deeper tension is that while Tribal governments have a strong claim to equal treatment as sovereigns, the United States is also pushing for the rule amendment to strengthen its own exercise of criminal jurisdiction in Indian country. Opportunity to weigh in Additional Resources Source link

September 29, 2026

Featured in

AI Lawyer Finder

© 2025 Michigan Top Lawyers. All Rights Reserved. Powered by SolutionsPal | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service