Reps. Sykes, Dingell, and Budzinski Reintroduce Fair Warning Act to Strengthen Worker Protections and Ensure Advance Notice of Layoffs

“WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Representatives Emilia Sykes (OH-13), Debbie Dingell (MI-06), and Nikki Budzinksi (IL-13) reintroduced the Fair Warning Act. The bill would update the Worker Adjustment and Retraining (WARN) Act of 1988, hold employers accountable, and give workers and communities the notice they need to best prepare for and recover from employer decisions that cost them their jobs.

…

"The Fair Warning Act is critical legislation allowing workers a fair opportunity to transition to new employment and training opportunities to avoid the devastating effects of sudden and unexpected job loss,” said Sugar Law Center for Economic & Social Justice Executive Director John Philo. “The Act updates and modernizes federal law to address the needs of today's workers and provides meaningful accountability when employers fail to meet their obligations to employees and the community."

U.S. Representatives Emilia Sykes press release here and the text of the bill here.

DAD Foundation's Suit In Support of Deaf & Hard of Hearing Volunteers at Tiger Stadium Can Proceed

“Now the Sugar Law Center for Economic and Social Justice has taken the case to court. They argue that what happened is discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Last month, a federal judge said their lawsuit can move forward. That means their claims under the ADA warrant a complete examination.

Although this happened at a baseball game at a popular stadium in Detroit, the story asks something bigger than baseball. What does access look like in a world built around sound?

Attorney Liz Jacob from the Sugar Law Center for Economic and Social Justice joined Robyn Vincent on The Metro to discuss what this ruling could mean for deaf and hard-of-hearing people across the country.”

See full story by Robyn Vincent at WDET here.

See the court’s decision denying the Defendants’ request to have the case dismissed, here.

Power surges damaged their property. DTE offered payouts if they kept quiet

“MLive reviewed two DTE agreements offering customers payments for damage claims where the utility had denied fault. Each required the customer to sign a release of claims and confidentiality agreement to accept.

“It does seem intended to silence people’s ability to talk about what they’re experiencing, to be able to share how they negotiated with the company,” said Liz Jacob, lead staff attorney with the Sugar Law Center for Economic and Social Justice in Detroit.

She represents low-income clients in conflicts with DTE and confirmed she’s observed the practice in disputes relating to both property damage and billing.”

See full story by Lucas Smolcic Larson from MLive here.

Detroit Officials Violated Citizens Input Over Surveillance Ordinance To Approve Shotspotter

A state appeals court handed a partial victory to critics of Detroit’s controversial ShotSpotter surveillance system, ruling that city officials violated a transparency ordinance when they approved contracts for the gunshot detection technology without properly notifying the public. …

“The City of Detroit uses surveillance technology to identify the location of gunshots in certain precincts,” Judge Brock Swartzle wrote for the majority. “Given the inherent invasiveness of surveillance technology, the City adopted specific procedural requirements that must be met when procuring such technology. These requirements were not met here.” …

“Much congrats to each of our clients for standing up in this case on behalf of all residents of the city,” John Philo, executive and legal director for Sugar Law Center, said. “While more limited in scope than hoped for, the court’s decision is an important recognition that citizens’ oversight and input ordinances matter and cannot simply be ignored by government officials.”

See full story by Steve Neavling at the MetroTimes.

A panel of judges overturned a lower court ruling … Judges found the city repeatedly violated requirements to publicly post a report on how the technology works before holding public hearings at City Council but stopped short of voiding the contracts, allowing a lower court to determine the consequence.

“With surveillance and similar technology ever encroaching into every recess of modern life, procedural safeguards cannot be ignored or downplayed by government actors as mere technicalities,” reads a joint opinion from Presiding Judge Kristina Robinson Garrett and Judge Brock Swartzle.

“Proper oversight includes a knowledgeable public,” Philo said. “To leave that behind is a cynical approach to government and a cynical approach to democracy overall. In terms of whether ShotSpotter is good or bad, that’s not what this case is about. If you’re going to adopt it, then let’s have an informed public and an honest debate about the pros and cons of that technology, and let’s report what it’s doing.

Full story by Malachi Barrett available at Bridge Detroit and Detroit Free Press.

See the decision of the Michigan Court of Appeals here.

Michigan Supreme Court Considers Whether People Can Bring Suit To Stop Prospective Harm From Unconstitutional Conduct Of State Officials

The Michigan Immigrant Rights Center is suing Gov. Gretchen Whitmer in her official capacity to end the state’s policy of denying worker’s compensation to undocumented immigrants who are injured while working. …

“The reality is, many employers gladly hire workers who don’t have work permits because they can pay them less and get away with more cutting corners on health and safety protections and when workers are inevitably injured, workers compensation insurance companies know they can deny wage loss benefits without challenge,” Galendez said …

John Philo, the executive and legal director of the Sugar Law Center for Economic and Social Justice, noted that this issue has already been addressed in Ohio and Minnesota, where in both states undocumented workers have been guaranteed access to worker’s compensation. The Sugar Law Center is representing the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center alongside FarmSTAND, a legal advocacy organization focused on issues of corporate agriculture. …

However, this case, first filed in 2021 in the Court of Claims, has become about more than just immigrant rights, argued lawyer David Muraskin, managing director for litigation at FarmSTAND. The Court of Appeals, overturning a decision from the Court of Claims, ruled in May 2024 that the argument was not timely — thus making Whitmer subject to immunity — because the claim was filed more than one year after the governor’s policy went into effect.

“That would mean that when the governor has a policy of any unconstitutional conduct, including this one, the fact that she got away with it for a year would keep anyone from ever going to court,” Muraskin said.

See full story by Katherine Dailey at Michigan Advance and Ionesco County News Herald.

Oral arguments in this case at the Michigan Supreme Court can be viewed here.

Workers Who Received Unemployment Insurance During The Pandemic Receive Surprise Bills From The State

The Michigan Unemployment Insurance Agency, UIA, told roughly 350,000 people last month they must repay their benefits. The state agency is seeking to recover $2.7 billion from workers who it says were overpaid benefits, meaning they got money when they weren’t supposed to, mostly in 2020 and 2021 during the height of the pandemic.

A court order had blocked the state from recouping these pandemic-era overpayments since December 2022. But it has since been lifted, as collections started again on Sept. 29. …

[L]awyers are worried, in some cases, the agency might be demanding benefits back from people who shouldn’t have to pay it. “Some folks probably are, unfortunately, going to be making payments voluntarily just because they don’t want anything worse to happen,” said Tony Paris, an attorney from the Sugar Law Center in Detroit. …

“When it comes to like who’s going to bear the weight of the mistake that happened at the end of the day, it shouldn’t be the worker and the law provides that it shouldn’t be the worker,” said Jacob Fallman, UIA Policy Coordinator at the Sugar Law Center.

See full story by Rose White at MLive.

Some pandemic-era unemployment insurance claimants who were at one point told they weren't eligible for benefits — but later won their case through an appeal hearing — are now being told by Michigan's Unemployment Insurance Agency that they owe the money back, attorneys representing these claimants say. …

In one case, Tony Paris, deputy legal director at the Sugar Law Center in Detroit, said one of his clients won a hearing and was found eligible for benefits in September 2024. The UIA never appealed it, he said, and the decision became final. Now, his client is getting a bill for about $30,000.

"She's not alone," Paris said in an email. "I've spoken with dozens of people, most former clients whose appeals (or) hearings I won years ago, who are now being asked to make payments."

See full story by Adrienne Roberts ad the Detroit Free Press.

The winding road to minimum wage increase and paid sick time for Michigan workers

A new Michigan State Bar Journal article by John Philo from the Sugar Law Center summarizes recent changes to the state's minimum wage and paid sick leave laws (Public Acts 1 & 2 of 2025).

"While most changes expand existing rights of employees, Public Act 2 ... eliminate[s] employees’ ability to bring a civil action against their employer ... vest[ing] enforcement exclusively within complaint procedures established by Michigan’s Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity. ... the amendments of Public Act 1 and 2 of 2025 more closely approximate the requirements of the citizens’ initiatives that prompted their enactment. However, the amendments continue to materially deviate from those initiatives in a number of areas. And while seemingly adopted in part at the suggestion of ... the Michigan Supreme Court ... it may remain to be determined just how far a legislative enactment can deviate from the provisions of a citizen’s initiative and still remain compliant with the requirements of Michigan Constitution at art. II, § 9."

Full article available here, at the State Bar of Michigan Journal.

Democrat Michigan AG Asked FBI to Raid Protesters’ Homes — But Won’t Tell Students Why

“These raids were very much seen as an escalation by the state attorney general, who’s expressed quite a bit of an extreme reaction against the students’ activism on the University of Michigan campus,” said John Philo, executive and legal director of the Sugar Law Center for Economic and Social Justice …Nessel, who asked the FBI to carry out the raids … has extensive personal, political, and financial ties to the University of Michigan, which bypassed local prosecutors by enlisting Nessel to crack down on pro-Palestine protesters … According to Philo and Liz Jacob, also of the Sugar Law Center …  Folks were shocked, especially to see that the FBI was executing an attorney general warrant, Jacob told The Intercept in an interview. I’ve never seen that in my experience, and we have not seen that in Michigan around pro-Palestine protests or on any other protests, to my knowledge.”

See full story by Aja Arnold at The Intercept here.

Michigan Raids on pro-Palestine Students

Great Chapo Trap House podcast covering the Mich AG’s searches of UM student protestors’ homes, where she called in the FBI and local police alleging “multijurisdictional” acts of vandalism by unknown persons. It is part of a pattern of actions intended to silence students from expressing views in support of divestment from Israel as a means to stop a genocide in Palestine. See Chapo Trap House podcast here.

Hakim et. al. v. Regents of the U of M, et. al.

“University of Michigan students and employees are claiming in a new federal lawsuit that they were wrongfully terminated by the Ann Arbor-based institution in retaliation for participating in pro-Palestine protests on campus … The Sugar Law Center and American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee filed the complaint Thursday, May 1, in U.S. District Court, alleging the university violated First Amendment free speech rights, as well as Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process.” … “Sadly, the University of Michigan is trying to resurrect an old but previously discarded tactic of firing and blacklisting workers whose viewpoints they don’t agree with,” John Philo, executive and legal director of the Sugar Law Center for Economic and Social Justice, said in a statement. “By all accounts, each of our clients was a dedicated employee performing necessary work for the university.” See article by Jackie Smith at MLive here.

Lawsuit: U-M fired 8 pro-Palestinian staffers and forever banned them from working there … See Detroit Freep Press story by Tresa Baldas here.

Former University of Michigan employees alleged in a new lawsuit that they were illegally fired and barred from seeking future work at the university because they participated in demonstrations to support ... See Law360 article by Danielle Ferguson here.

See Plaintiffs’ Complaint here.