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

D.C. Federal Court Rejects Challenge to Interior Reversal on Scotts Valley Gaming Lands – Turtle Talk

D.C. Federal Court Rejects Challenge to Interior Reversal on Scotts Valley Gaming Lands – Turtle Talk

The leading blog on legal issues in Indian Country The views and opinions expressed on Turtle Talk are the authors’ and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Michigan State University. Follow Blog via Email Join 11.2K other subscribers Source link

October 1, 2026

Employment – FMLA – Reduction in force

Employment – FMLA – Reduction in force

Where a defendant employer has moved for summary judgment under the Family and Medical Leave Act, that motion should be allowed because (1) the defendant has demonstrated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for failing to reinstate the plaintiff and (2) the plaintiff failed to rebut that reason as pretextual. “Plaintiff Nicole Bellottie alleges that her former employer, Defendant Healthcarefirst, Inc., interfered with her Family and Medical Leave Act (‘FMLA’) rights, retaliated against her for exercising her FMLA rights, and discriminated against her because of her disability in violation of the Michigan Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act (‘PWDCRA’). … “… As of August 2023, Defendant ‘determined that a company-wide reduction-in-force (RIF) needed to occur because of ongoing economic headwinds, including declining federal government healthcare reimbursement rates and increased operational costs.’ … “… It is undisputed that Plaintiff was not reinstated after her FMLA leave. Because reinstatement is an entitlement under the FMLA, Plaintiff has stated a prima facie case for interference. … “The burden now shifts to Defendant to demonstrate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for failing to reinstate Plaintiff. Defendant adequately satisfies this burden. … “Here, Defendant has provided evidence that it was operating at an increasing loss in its Clinical Documentation and Review line of business from at least 2020. … The evidence also establishes that all of Defendant’s lines of business were ordered to reduce their headcount by over 100 employees in total, and in the Clinical Documentation and Review line of business specifically, the team was instructed to eliminate eight positions. … “Now the burden shifts back to Plaintiff to establish that Defendant’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason is pretext. … “… Here, ‘Plaintiff fails to offer any summary judgment evidence that the criteria used by Defendant[] in implementing the reduction in force … were inappropriate, and it is not the role of the Court to second-guess the business judgment of an employer.’ … “Therefore, Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claim for FMLA interference. … “Having already determined that Defendant proffered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for Plaintiff’s discharge and that Plaintiff failed to rebut that reason as pretextual, Plaintiff’s FMLA retaliation and PWDCRA disability discrimination claims may be dismissed on that basis without consideration of the prima facie stage of either claim. … “As discussed above, after reviewing all the evidence, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has ‘created only a weak issue of fact as to whether [Defendant’s] reason was untrue and there [is] abundant and uncontroverted independent evidence that no discrimination ha[s] occurred.’ … For this reason, Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s FMLA retaliation and PWDCRA claims. … “For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 21] is GRANTED. This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.” Bellottie v. Healthcarefirst, Inc.; MiLW No. 02-111149, 30 pages; U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan; Drain, J. Source link

October 1, 2026

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

Featured in

AI Lawyer Finder

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