Search Site
Menu
University of Michigan Pays $300,000 to Settle Wrongful Termination Lawsuit

The University of Michigan recently agreed to pay $300,000 to settle a lawsuit filed by a former employer who alleged wrongful termination on the part of the school.

The former employee was Amy J. Wang, who worked as an executive in technology services and the finance department. She claims she was fired after she blew the whistle on issues related to the university employing a non-United States resident.

According to Wang’s complaint, her boss, Associate Vice President of Finance Nancy Hobbs, requested that she lie to U.S. Customs and Immigration Services (USCIS) officials about the duties of a temporary employee who was not an American citizen. That employee was working at the University through a program created by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) that allows Canadian or Mexican residents to get temporary work visas in the United States. Wang says in her complaint that the employee in question worked in a permanent managerial role, a role now allowed under the guidelines of the NAFTA program.

Wang refused to comply with the request to misrepresent the employee’s duties, and worked with the Human Resources department to revise that employee’s duties, resulting in a removal of management duties and a pay decrease of $9500. This caused conflict between Wang and her supervisor, and in June, Hobbs told Wang to resign under threat of firing. Wang declined, and was ultimately fired on July 13, with the official basis for the termination being a “failure to meet expectations.”

In settling the case, the university does not admit any liability.

Whistleblowers receive protections from retaliation

There are a number of anti-retaliation statutes in federal law that protect whistleblowers from being wrongfully terminated or otherwise retaliated against after they report wrongdoing.

For more information on the protections available to you and the steps you should take to report this wrongdoing, speak with an experienced whistleblower attorney at Kardell Law Group.

Honors
Our Office
  • Dallas Office
    4514 Cole Ave
    #600
    Dallas, Texas 75205
    Phone: 214-306-8045
    Fax: 469-729-9926
Testimonials
  • "Steve Kardell was terrific in representing me in some very adversarial discussions with Citigroup and also later represented me in my testimony before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission."  -Richard Bowen, Citigroup Whistleblower

  • "Never thought my career would end like it did after 30 years of service. I was part of the first round of the so called reduction of force. I asked myself how can I be part of this with 30 years of seniority. How did they pick these 90 plus employees? Now, the culture of this organization made you question every decision they made. It wasn’t what you knew it’s was a culture of who you know. Nonetheless, I did not accept their severance package. I immediately starting looking for an attorney who would take on my case. After the initial call to Steve I had hope again. He was open and honest about everything and reassured me he would do his best for me, and he did. I had an awesome outcome. Thanks Steve you’re the best."  -S.S.

  • "Reaching out to Steve Kardell was the best decision I made. His ability to provide immediate insight and direction was very powerful, and a huge relief during a very stressful time period. For anyone struggling with a whistleblower situation, I would highly recommend at least speaking with Steve. After a 10 minute call with him, I had a better understanding of what I was dealing with. Even better, he gave me some immediate hope. In the end Steve did a better job than I thought was possible. Steve was able to get in contact with people in my organization, that I didn’t have access to. Because of his years of experience, he already has contacts in many organizations in Dallas. The entire situation was handled peacefully. I was impressed by his ability to “keep the peace”–rather than creating a battle with the organization. The reason I didn’t reach out to a lawyer initially, was because I thought it would mean an immediate end to any hope of a positive relationship with the company. Steve was able to address my concerns, and in the end I was able to continue to work for them."  -KS

FOLLOW US
Facebook Twitter Linkedin RSS Feed JD Supra