Thanks for the info! Your point about her bypassing EEOC is a good one and it probably did impact the schedule. I hope her deposition is videotaped and uploaded to Youtube. I have a feeling it will be great entertainment.

There was no other information. Given that Dixon survived summary judgment, the case may have settled, but I find this unlikely given that TMLC hasn’t made any kind of announcement that the case has settled. While the average length of an employment action may be shorter in the federal system it is important to remeber that most of these cases are dismissed at the pretrial phase or settle. A dismissal for failure to state a claim or a grant of summary judgment would technically lead to a final judgment without a full trial. It’s also important to remember that unlike a Title VII case which must proceed through the EEOC before a case can be filed, Dixon bypassed the administrative agency by filing constitutional claims and passing on a Title VII case. This may lead to a court case taking longer because the EEOC investigation process often causes the parties to produce many of the evidence normally reserved for discovery. Additionally, all of the defendant’s objections were standing issues and did not touch the substantive questions in the case. Given all this I wouldn’t be surprised if the case had taken longer than usual.

Thanks for the update on her lawsuit, but can you tell us anything more about what the current status is? It has been over 2 years since it was filed, and a federal employment lawsuit will go from initial filing to final judgment in less time, on average. The amendments you describe would not explain or justify any delay in the proceedings. Is there a scheduling order or anything else to suggest when it might be resolved either at trial or on summary judgment?

Thanks for that tidbit. Other than the past couple of years of Detroit issues, MI has sort of stayed off my radar for politics and poker.

I think my point was that with this new HR director, in the absence of any explicit protections, we shouldn’t count on her being especially friendly to LQBTG(etc.) issues, and your information looks like it supports that premise.

I did a Westlaw search on the case. We probably haven’t heard anything because her complaint was amended to drop all constitutional claims and now constitutes a case solely based on the Equal Pay Act. For the religious right this simply doesn’t have any red meat on a morality issue that can raise money and drum up the base.

Unless the State of Michigan has a policy that extends to counties, I would not be confident in any sort of explicit employment discrimination protection at the county level.

I reply:

The State of Michigan does have such a law. It’s called the Eliot Larson Act (I think I have that right). But it doesn’t include sexual orientation or gender expression.