Tom R. Pabst interviewed on Whitmer's Recent Abortion Suit

/

ABC12 “Experts analyze Whitmer abortion suit” 04/07/2022

“LANSING, Mich. (WJRT)- Governor Gretchen Whitmer is looking to secure a woman's right to chose - regardless of a potential Supreme Court ruling that would overturn Roe V. Wade.
It stems from a Michigan law that dates back to 1846. Governor Whitmer said she's filing her lawsuit to a clear legal grey area.
* * *
”As you can probably imagine, this legal discussion is one with unanswered questions, so ABC12 News dug in with a few experts.”

[for full story, click on ABC12 link above]

Tom R. Pabst highlighted on Radio Free Flint podcast→

/

From Radio Public (LINK)

Super Lawyer Tom Pabst on Whistleblowers, Police Misconduct and Jury Trials

Tom R. Pabst has dedicated his legal career to obtaining justice for the underdog, the weak, the powerless and those without a voice.  He is recognized by his peers as one of the best trial attorneys in Michigan.  He has obtained over a dozen million dollar jury awards for his clients in his career.
As a trial attorney, Tom R. Pabst is recognized by Judges as being in the top 5% of attorneys in Michigan.  Trial experience includes over 80 major trials with substantial verdicts in the following areas of law:  wrongful discharge, civil rights, Whistleblower Protection Act, Federal Constitutional rights, personal injury, medical malpractice and commercial litigation.
He was recognized as a 2011 “Leader in the Law” in Michigan and a Michigan “Super Lawyer” since 2007.   He was elected by his peers as President of the Genesee County Bar Association (1994-95), President of the Flint Trial Lawyers Association (1991-1994) and Chairperson of the Bench and Bar Committee.
Attorney Tom R. Pabst has been practicing law since November, 1977, having both a law degree and a master’s in tax degree (with an all-A average) from Wayne State University.  He practices law in Flint Township, Michigan.

Radio Free Flint is a podcast created by Genesee County’s former Prosecuting Attorney, Arthur Busch. For more episodes, visit their media page. (LINK)
To learn more about Art Busch, visit his bio page. (LINK)

$125,000 paid to office manager who was fired the day he turned a certain age

/

Plaintiff’s Counsel was able to confirm under oath that Defendants tortiously interfered with Plaintiff’s employment lifetime contract when Defendants fired him the day he turned 59 ½ years old.

Read More

Whistleblowing Goodrich Village Clerk Awarded $250,000

/

In the media:

Facts of case:

Jakki Sidge, Plaintiff, was the Clerk for the Village of Goodrich for over 25 years. Jakki Sidge engaged in in “Type I” reporting protected activity when she reported the Village Council’s violation or suspected violation of the Michigan Open Meetings Act to the Village Council (which includes Defendants Vick, Light and Barraco) and to the Township Attorney, Thomas P. McKenney. The Village Council members and Attorney McKenney are “public bodies” as defined by MCLA 15.361(d)(iii) and (iv) and McNeil-Marks v. MidMichigan Medical Center-Gratiot, 316 Mich. App. 1 (2016) (an attorney is a “public body” under the WPA).

Plaintiff’s report to Village Attorney McKenney resulted in an opinion letter that Plaintiff physically gave to the Council on 5/15/18 which corroborated Plaintiff’s reporting to the Defendants about their own violations or suspected violations of both the Open Meetings Act and the Bullard Plawecki Right to Know Act.

Then, at the 5/15/18 Council Meeting, Plaintiff engaged in WPA “Type I” protected activity by giving Defendants the McKenney letter and, further, by verbally reminding them throughout the 5/15/18 meeting that they were violating the laws as referenced and set forth in the McKenney letter. The Council Meeting Minutes state, “Sidge distributed communication from Attorney McKenney regarding the procedure for discussing time sheets and performance reviews as it related to the Open Meetings Act and the Bullard Plawecki Right to Know Act”. In fact, during his deposition, Defendant Light admitted receiving the McKenney letter pointing out Defendants’ violations of law.

The individual Defendants admitted at their depositions that the termination of Plaintiff’s employment contract was not even on the agenda for the 5/15/18 Council Meeting. Further, Defendants Light and Barraco admitted they got up that day without any plans whatsoever to discuss the termination of Plaintiff’s employment contract at the 5/15/18 meeting.

At that meeting, Defendants openly displayed their predisposition to retaliate against Plaintiff for her doing precisely what the Legislature wants employees to do under the WPA, that is, report “violations or suspected violations of law” to a “public body” which includes Attorney McKenney. In fact, Defendant Barraco became so agitated when confronted with the fact that he and the other Council Members had been, and still were, violating the laws as set forth in the McKenney letter, he angrily and pointedly asked, “So, who contacted the lawyer?”, to which Plaintiff responded, “I did.” Thus, Defendants were aware that Plaintiff was the one who made the report of the violations of the Open Meetings Act and the Bullard Plawecki Right to Know Act to the Village Attorney, and now to them, making Plaintiff a whistleblower. Defendants decided to terminate Jakki Sidge’s employment for her whistleblowing at the 5/15/18 Council Meeting.

Defendants’ repeatedly voiced their displeasure at Plaintiff going to Village Attorney McKenney by derisively referring to her protected activity as a “subterfuge” to cover herself for allegedly not doing the (unlawful) acts they demanded she do. Then Defendants’ fired her.

Jakki Sidge is a good person who didn’t do anything wrong, and the jury was going to see that. The individual Defendants were going to look like bullies for pressuring her to commit unlawful acts. The case mediated for $250,000, and both sides accepted.

Summary of the case:

Type of Action: Whistleblower, Public Policy, ELCRA Violations

Injuries Alleged: Loss of job, lost wages, outrage/emotional distress/mental anguish

Court: Genesee County Circuit Court

Name of Judge: Hon. Kay Behm

Settlement: $250,000

Date of Settlement: 9/13/17

Key To Winning: Legally, the key to winning was distinguishing the case of Wurtz v. Beecher Metropolitan District, 495 Mich. 242 (2014). Factually, the key to winning was the existence of an audio/video tape of a Village Board Meeting which showed that the Plaintiff was telling the truth and Defendants were not.

Attorney for Plaintiff: Tom R. Pabst

Lawyers Weekly Article "Whistleblowers and public beware! Recent Court of Appeals opinion decreases protection of public"

/

Tom R. Pabst’s article regarding a potential change in the current Whistleblower Protection Act application and law was published in Michigan Lawyers Weekly.

Read the entire article at their site: https://milawyersweekly.com/news/2019/05/07/whistleblowers-and-public-beware/

Employer pays Plaintiff $100,000 after breaching commission contract

/

In the media:

Facts of the case:

Defendant Scott Gormley and his corporation, SGI, sold/installed furnaces and heaters, principally through their intermediary, Home Depot. Plaintiff Dan Gallagher was one of their best salesmen. In fact, Dan Gallagher was so good that Defendants would have had to pay him quite a bit of money in commission attributable to sales he generated in accordance with the contract Plaintiff and Defendants had agreed to in writing.

Instead of paying Dan as promised in writing, Defendants reneged on their promise and kept the substantial commission monies for themselves. Plaintiff filed two complaint with the State of Michigan protesting this behavior, and participated in investigations held by the State into this matter. Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff by effectively terminating his employment, claiming “cash flow” problems.

Plaintiff then filed a lawsuit in Genesee County Circuit Court alleging (1) Whistleblower Protection Act violation, (2) Breach of Contract, (3) Breach of Implied In-Fact Contract, and (4) Violation of Sales Representative Commission Act.

The case settled through the ADR process, both side accepting the $100,000 ADR Award.

Summary of the case:

Type of Action:    Whistleblower Protection Act violation, Breach of Contract, Breach of Implied In-Fact Contract, and Violation of Sales Representative Commission Act
Injuries Alleged:    Loss of job, lost wages, outrage/emotional distress/mental anguish
Name of Case:   Dan Gallagher v. Scott Gormley, Inc, et al
Court:    Genesee County Circuit Court   
Name of Judge:    Hon. Joseph J. Farah
Settlement:    $100,000

Attorney for Plaintiff:    Tom R. Pabst

Koegel Meats sends African-American Flint residents a clear message: You can buy our hot dogs, but we don't want you making them

/

In the media:

Facts of the case:

Plaintiff Elana Tucker, suffered the lonely existence of being the only black employee out of 30 employees in the production packaging department at Defendant Koegel Meats, for over 20 years. Elana Tucker was subjected to vile and cruel racial harassment by her white co-workers, over and over again. And, when Elana turned to her white management for help, nothing was done to stop the harassment. In fact, after Defendant John Koegel was made aware that someone had carved the racially offensive word “N-I-G” into a stall in the women’s bathroom – which was meant to offend Plaintiff, the only black employee in the department – he allowed the word to remain on the stall for over 8 ½ months. While Elana continued to complain about this incident, Defendant John Koegel admitted that all of the people who “investigated” the “N-I-G” incident were white. Further, Koegel admitted that no written statements were taken nor were any interviews recorded. In fact, no report was even prepared!

During her 20-year employment with Defendant Koegel Meats, Elana also had to endure the following harassment by her white co-employees:

  • An Osama Bin Laden poster was placed onto the front of Elana’s work locker;

  • Honey was dumped down the front of Elana’s work locker;

  • Frequently, the bathroom lights would be turned off on Elana while she was using the bathroom;

  • “Gorilla noises” were made when Elana walked by;

  • Comments were made to Elana including: “I’m gonna whip you”, “You ghetto”, “Go back to the burnt down houses in Flint”; your lazy and stupid;

  • Another employee come at Elana with a knife.

Despite Elana’s numerous verbal and written notices to her employer of the racial harassment, nothing was done and Elana’s lonely journey against the vile racism she suffered and opposed continued. Then, to make matters worse, Elana’s union representative, Bill Crim – who was supposed to be there to protect Elana’s rights – became so sick and tired of her opposing racial harassment that he actually began working with the employer – behind Elana’s back – to get her fired! Shockingly, the evidence showed that Bill Crim, who is white, actually teamed up with Defendants to terminate Elana’s employment and put it in writing! The document was written to Koegel Meat’s Executive Director, Kathy Koegel, and stated that Bill Crim wanted “Elana to be terminated on Tuesday”, and that the discharge document should use the words, “reprimand pending discharge.” And, they followed through with their plan of attack to the letter, even using the same recommended phraseology, “reprimand pending discharge”, on the document terminating Elana’s 20-year employment. Further, their “plan of attack” specifically referenced the grievance filed by Elana on 3/30/16 wherein she alleged “harassment and racism”, which is direct evidence of retaliation against Elana for her protected activity of opposing racism.

Summary of the case:

Type of Action:    ELCRA Discrimination/Race, ELCRA Harassment/Race, ELCRA Opposition/Retaliation, Violations under the U.S. Constitution
Injuries Alleged:    Loss of job, lost wages, outrage/emotional distress/mental anguish
Name of Case:    Elana Tucker v. Koegel Manufacturing, Inc., and/or Koegel Meats, Inc., and John Koegel and Jeremy Leonard
Court:    Genesee County Circuit Court   
Case No:    16-107757-CZ
Name of Judge:    Hon. Joseph J. Farah
Settlement:    $145,000

Key To Winning:    Plaintiff’s Counsel was able to objectively prove, beyond any doubt, that Defendants, specifically Defendant John Koegel, knew that the racially offensive word “N-I-G” had been carved into a stall in the  women’s bathroom, as a way to intimidate and harass the only black employee in the department – Plaintiff – and, further, despite this knowledge, John Koegel allowed the offensive word to remain on the stall for over 8 ½ months.

Attorney for Plaintiff:    Tom R. Pabst, Michael A. Kowalko and Jarrett M. Pabst

Attorney for Defendants:    Withheld

MEDICAL CARE PROVIDER PAYS DOCTOR $600,000 TO SETTLE LAWSUIT

/

In the media:

Facts of the case:

Defendant Medical Care Provider offered to pay Dr. John Doe $600,000 to settle his lawsuit before the second day of his deposition was to resume.  Dr. Doe is a foreign doctor and medical specialist, who as a specialist in his field has been published multiple times.  Prior to this, he had been practicing at offices located within the same Medical Care Provider for over 15 years, where he treated and cared for cancer patients.

Although highly skilled in his medical specialty, Dr. Doe believed his religion and national origin were causing issues with others in the facility and had now become obvious factors in the ongoing discrimination and harassment he was suffering.  These issues eventually resulted in his suspension from Defendant Medical Care Provider.  Upon suspending Dr. Doe, the facility contacted all of his patients and directed them to other doctors in their network.  They then quickly rescinded the suspension after contacting the patients and returned Dr. Doe to work with a letter saying he was “safe to return”.  Once Dr. Doe started to rebuild his practice and patients list, Defendant Medical Care Provider locked-out Dr. Doe from the facility, which prevented him from caring and treating his cancer patients.  Then Defendant Medical Care Provider contacted all of Dr. Doe’s patients and directed them to other doctors in their network before the next business day, and before he could contact an attorney.

Plaintiff’s counsel immediately filed a motion and argued a preliminary hearing to protect Dr. Doe’s rights to practice and his patients’ rights to get the treatment they chose, and that only he could provide.  After an eight (8) day hearing, the Judge issued a Preliminary Injunctive Order ordering Defendant Medical Care Provider to stop interfering, bring back Dr. Doe and allow him to re-enter the facility and practice without anymore interruptions per the lease agreement.  Unfortunately, Defendants had already contacted all of Dr. Doe’s patients, and directed them to other doctors in their network, such that irreparable damage had been done. Dr. Doe returned to a pilfered practice, and eventually had to leave our community, and is now practicing in another state, making approximately $550,000 per year, which is about what he was making with Defendant Medical Care Provider.

Despite Defendant Medical Care Provider paying $600,000 to settle the lawsuit, the real losers in this fiasco are the patients in Michigan with cancer, who will no longer have an experienced expert such as Dr. Doe to treat and care for them.

Summary of the case:

Type of Action: Breach of Express Contract, Implied-in-Fact Contract, Promissory Estoppel, Unjust Enrichment, ELCRA Discrimination/Opposition/Retaliation, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Invasion of Privacy, Violations of Revised Judicature Act of 1961, Act. 236, Including MCLA 600.2918, and Tortious Interference with a Contract or Advantageous Relationship or Expectancy
 
Injuries Alleged:    Breach of contract, lost income, outrage/emotional distress/mental anguish, damage to professional reputation
Name of Case:    Dr. John Doe, et al v. Medical Care Provider, et al
Court:    Confidential
Case No:    Confidential
Name of Judge:    Confidential
Settlement:    $600,000
Key To Winning:    Plaintiff’s Counsel was able to objectively show that Defendants locked Dr. Doe out of the facility, thereby breaching the contract between them and Dr. Doe.
Attorney for Plaintiff:    Tom R. Pabst, Michael A. Kowalko and Jarrett M. Pabst
Attorney for Defendants:    Withheld

Police Officer Kevin Smith's Resolves Case with City for $72,500 over after being victorious in the Michigan Supreme Court

/

Tom R. Pabst went back to the Michigan Supreme Court to argue on behalf of Kevin Smith, a Flint Police Officer who spoke up against the city misusing millage funds intended to increase the number of police present in the city.  Smith claims that right after speaking out and raising his concerns, the city retaliated against him, and in doing so, took away his ability to represent union members and made him the only officer on a static route patrolling the North End of Flint.

The Supreme Court took the case to consider whether the Court of Appeals applied the correct legal standard as to Michigan's pleading standards.  In particular they wanted oral argument regarding whether Smith alleged sufficient facts to establish that he suffered an "adverse employment action" and sufficient facts to establish that he engaged in a protected activity under the WPA.

After hearing oral arguments the Michigan Supreme Court issued an opinion that agreed with Plaintiff's position that undesirable job assignments is discrimination and an "adverse employment action" under the Whistleblowers' Protection Act.

The case was settled shortly after being sent back down from the Michigan Supreme Court.

Michigan Supreme Court materials:

  • To read the briefs filed with the Michigan Supreme Court, click here
  • To watch the oral arguments, click here

In the media:

 

Financial Executive forced out after reporting suspected fraud

/

In the media:

Facts of case:

    This was a Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA) and Wrongful Discharge in Violation of Public Policy (WDPP) case in which the Plaintiff/employee, Glenn Gray, reported, amongst other things, suspected Medicaid fraud to his “public body” employer, and further, refused to go along with the said Medicaid fraud. For this, Mr. Gray (a 7-year employee with an excellent work history) was quickly suspended and then driven out, a constructive discharge. Because he is a well-educated and highly-qualified person, Mr. Gray quickly found new employment such that his past wage loss was limited to $17,898.

    In this case, the Defense made all the usual arguments, including especially (1) trying to convince the Circuit Court to “judicially legislate” onto MCLA 15.362 of the WPA that an employee’s report of a suspected violation of law must be “in writing” and (2) attempting to convince the Circuit Court that WPA and WDPP claims are always mutually exclusive.

    Fortunately, the Circuit Court Judge in this case was the same Judge who presided over the $232,500 verdict we won from the jury in the WPA case of Whitman v. City of Burton, 493 Mich. 303 (2013). Just as his ruling in Whitman was ultimately affirmed by the Michigan Supreme Court that MCLA 15.362 is a clear and unambiguous statute such that nothing is to be judicially legislated out of or onto it, he recognized in the case at hand that the reports do not have to be “in writing” for the reason that those words are not in MCLA 15.362.

    Additionally, the Circuit Court correctly recognized that a WPA cause of action and a WDPP cause of action are not always mutually exclusive. He recognized that that is the general rule, but that there are exceptions. Here, the Circuit Court followed the published case law which provides that because an employee’s refusal to violate a law is not something that is covered by the WPA, then a WDPP claim brought on this basis cannot be preempted.

    After Defendants’ Motion for Summary Disposition was denied, the case settled for the ADR Award of $125,000.

Black employee fired after complained of Disproportionate workload - case settles for $100,000

/

In the media:

  • Michigan Lawyers Weekly "Woman alleged race was factor in unfair treatment at work She was dismissed after confronting boss over job duties" 10/05/2017

Facts of case:

Plaintiff Stephanie Jones, a black woman, was approached one day by her white female counter-part that Stephanie was given more assignments than others and many that were not a part of her job.  Coincidentally, Stephanie was the only black woman in the position and the only one with the increase work load.  She confronted her white supervisor, opposing this obvious discrimination. Her white supervisor responded by setting Stephanie up to fail.

Specifically, her white supervisor made her job as onerous as possible by taking work from other, non-complaining employees and assigning Plaintiff it as extra required job duties. Stephanie, however, stayed true to her work ethic, and worked 15 hours per day to keep up.

After working through this for months, Stephanie finally went up the chain-of-command to complain about how she was being treated.  Stephanie went to her boss's white woman supervisor, for help and to complain, but this supervisor just “circled the wagons” and backed up what was happening. Together, they then resorted to manufacturing pretextual after-the-fact documents to try to justify wrongfully discharging Stephanie allegedly based on job performance. Within 10 days of complaining up the chain, black employee, Stephanie Jones, was fired.

In order to fire her Defendants created documents in such haste that they didn’t correlate with the real-time events, and even the author of them couldn’t explain how the plan to fire Stephanie appeared in her own personal handwritten notes, which were written a full 6 weeks prior to Plaintiff’s termination.

So, Defendants’ story they concocted story that they didn’t decide to fire Stephanie until a few days before they did so, blew up in their faces.  This phony, manufactured evidence didn’t go unnoticed – Defendants’ former black HR manager/employee, noted in a memo, “I do not have any notes or formal documentation about her performance to support a termination of her employment”. This same HR manager, testified that she believed Defendants were doing things in meetings that were “illegal”.

If these actions weren’t enough to prove the racism, Plaintiff’s position was then filled by a white man.

Though the case was potentially worth hundreds of thousands, because Stephanie was such a diligent and capable worker, Stephanie found new comparable employment within 9 months. The case settled for $100,000 through the Court’s ADR process.

Summary of the case:

Type of Action: ELCRA Discrimination/Race

Injuries Alleged: Loss of job, lost wages, outrage/emotional distress/mental anguish

Court: Genesee County Circuit Court

Name of Judge: Hon. Judith Fullerton

Settlement: $100,000

Date of Settlement: 9/13/17

Key To Winning: Defendants’ former black HR Manager/employee’s testimony which revealed that Defendants were manufacturing documents after-the-fact, in order to support a pretextual proffered business reason concerning Plaintiff’s job performance to cover up their discrimination against the black Plaintiff

Attorney for Plaintiff: Tom R. Pabst, Michael A. Kowalko and Jarrett M. Pabst

Attorney for Defendants: Withheld

Village settles with family after police chief went "zero tolerance" on them

/

In the news:

Summary of the case:

For 2 generations the Bittermans had a small family owned restaurant in the small Village of Oakley.  In 2013, they employed a young woman who went to her boss, Dennis Bitterman for help, reporting to him that the Chief of the Police Department started sexually harassing and stalking. When Dennis stepped in to protect her, and told the Chief of Police to stop, the Chief waged war against Bitterman’s business, Oakley Family Tavern, and used his power and political clout to try to destroy the Bitterman’s business.

The response shocked the small business owners.  As Dennis testified at his deposition “All of this stuff started after I made that complaint with him. [The chief] called and threatened me on the phone he was going to shut my business down and have my dumb-ass daughter in jail, he’s going to go to zero tolerance on me…”

The Saginaw County Circuit Court Judge saw that this was a direct evidence case as stated in the Court’s Opinion and Order dated 12/29/16, where the Court actually quoted the testimony of Dennis Bitterman.

Two weeks before the Trial was to begin, Dennis Bitterman was finally vindicated for doing the right thing when a settlement was reached with the Village of Oakley for $100,000.

 

GCBA Deposition Seminar 2017

/

The Genesee County Bar Association, Genesee County Bar Foundation and the Neithercut Fund sponsored the seminar for all local attorneys to improve their deposition skills.  This 1/2 day seminar involveda number of topics, including:

  • How to portect your client
  • Proper objections
  • Using the Michigan Court Rules as both a shield and a sword for discovery
  • Real-life examples from attorneys and court reporters
  • Vignettes

The seminar was only possible through the support of our local organizations and the time donated by featured speakers, Tom R. Pabst & the Honorable Robert Ransom, moderator and GCBA President, Michael Kowalko, local attorney Nancy Chinonis (Cline, Cline & Griffin), court reporter David Ripka  (Ripka, Boroski & Associates) and the amazing staff at the GCBA.

Dep Seminar Flyer.jpg

Lawyers Weekly Article "Protection increases for whistleblowers"

/

Congratulations, Tom R. Pabst, on having Michigan Lawyers Weekly pick up your article to publish in the their September 5, 2016 edition.

This article is a follow-up to the previous article "Increased Protections for the Whistleblowers of Michigan" published in the Michigan Bar Journal, May 2012 and discusses the how the Courts have now clarified that any attorney of a mandatory State Bar Association is a public body.

Below is a link to the Lawyers Weekly article:

Protection increases for whistleblowers 

By: Tom R. Pabst in News Stories September 6, 2016

After a recent deicsion, it is clear that reports to an attorney, including reports to the private employer’s attorney, or to plaintiff’s own attorney, constitute “engaging in protected activity” protected by the WPA... [log in for full article]