Suttons Bay Law

Sometimes, an otherwise legitimate disciplinary action can be the basis for a claim of discrimination if the employer has not taken steps to administer the discipline comparably in similar situations. If Bob reported to work 10 minutes late and was given a verbal warning, while Mary also reported to work 10 minutes late but was sent home without pay, Mary may decide to pursue – and be successful in pursuing – a claim for sex discrimination.

In a recent decision out of the federal 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, Madden v. Chattanooga City Wide Services Department, the Court upheld a finding of race discrimination where a supervisor reported a black employee for setting off firecrackers at work even though the same supervisor never reported similar conduct by white employees. The conduct itself – setting off firecrackers at the workplace – was a plain violation of workplace safety rules and was a legitimate basis for the company’s decision to terminate the employee. The problem was, management never bothered to determine whether the supervisor had handled similar situations the same way.

It is imperative that management properly educate anyone in a supervisory capacity concerning the need to treat all workers equally. It is equally important for management to monitor and investigate disciplinary decisions by supervisors to ensure that those supervisors are acting properly.

Tags: Employment Law by Dan Penning
No Comments »

Last January, we reported on the new I-9 form that employers must complete within three days of hiring a new employee. The new form updates the criteria for acceptable documentation that can be used to prove that an employee is lawfully entering the workforce.

The new forms must be used for any new hires beginning February 2, 2009. If you have not already obtained updated forms, the time to do so is now. Sample forms are available at www.uscis.gov/files/formi-9.pdf.

Tags: Employment Law, Know Your Business by Dan Penning
No Comments »

February and March are important months for Michigan property owners. Michigan property owners will soon receive a Notice of Assessment in the mail from the local assessor’s office. The large letters in the top right corner will read: THIS IS NOT A TAX BILL, and thus, many property owners take a cursory glance, pleased to see that the number in the Assessed Value and State Equalized Value columns have decreased, and toss it away. When the summer property tax bill arrives several months later, the property owners realize that the property tax due has increased from the amount they paid last year. The Notice of Assessment is one of the most important documents property owners receive. It provides the various valuations used in the formula that determines the property taxes on that particular parcel of property.

Proposal A, passed in 1994, placed limits on the Taxable Value of Michigan property. Prior to Proposal A, property taxes were based on the State Equalized Value. The Michigan Constitution limits the annual increases of Taxable Value to 5% or the rate of inflation, whichever is less, and the Taxable Value cannot be greater than the State Equalized Value, which is 50% of the True Cash Value of the property. This means that the Taxable Value of your property can increase while the market value of your property decreases. The increase for 2009 property tax purposes is 4.4 percent.

The Michigan Department of Treasury website explains: “For the first decade or more after the passage of Proposal A, most property owners experienced significant and sometimes double-digit “property value” increases while their actual property taxes would increase by between 1 percent and 3 percent (rate of inflation as calculated). In fact, a Department of Treasury analysis shows that since Proposal A went into effect in 1995, home values in Michigan have increased 98.4 percent, while property taxes have only increased 42.9 percent. Unfortunately, due to various economic factors, the opposite has occurred over the last several years and will occur again in 2009. Property values may be declining (or remaining flat) while property taxes for many taxpayers will increase by 4.4 % (as long as a property’s taxable value does not exceed its state equalized value) as mandated by Proposal A.”

However, due to the fact that the Taxable Value cannot be greater than the State Equalized Value, a property owner may want to contest the Assessed Value, which multiplied by the equalization factor equals the State Equalized Value, as provided on the Notice of Assessment. The taxpayer must appeal to the March Board of Review that meets on the second Monday in March to hear and determine taxpayer complaints relating to their property valuations. The Notice of Assessment may provide a different date if the locality has set a special date for the Board of Review meeting than that provided under the state statute. A taxpayer’s appeal to the local board of review at this time is mandatory before any appeal to the Tax Tribunal.

If you have any questions or concerns related to your Notice of Assessment, or simply want an explanation of your Notice of Assessment, please contact our office.

This link provides Michigan property owners with a helpful 4 1/2 minute video and slide explanation regarding Michigan property taxes:
http://mediasite.mihealth.org/Mediasite/Viewer/Viewers/Viewer320TL.aspx?mode=Default&peid=61ddea17-2294-45e7-8bf5-d341f0b48db8&pid=da8f930d-e4fd-4327-b1a5-8168592e7caa&playerType=WM7#

1]The Notice of Assessment Form may be found at http://www.michigan.gov/documents/1019_fillable_77355_7.pdf.

Heather Brenneman Miles, Attorney
——————————————————–

Tags: Asset Protection, Estate Planning by Dan Penning
No Comments »