Traverse City Personal Injury Lawyer - Michigan

Dog Bite Basics in Michigan

Timothy Smith — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:13:50 GMT

DOG BITE

In Michigan, when a dog bites a person, the person must sue the owner of the dog within three years from the date of the dog bite under MCL 600.5805(10). Proper plaintiffs would include:

· Person the dog bit and injured, as well as their spouse, child, or parent;

· Personal representative of the person killed in a dog attack, who would be a stand-in for the deceased and could recover on behalf of the dead person’s estate.

The proper defendant in a dog bite case includes:

1) the “registered owner” of the dog, or person who has represented him or herself to be the “owner”;

2) the “keeper,” or the “temporary caretaker” of the dog.

The jury will determine the fact question of whether the defendant having possession of the dog rises to “keeper” status and is usually defined as exercising the type of control over the dog that the owner would exert.

Three common potential causes of action for dog bite cases include:

1) The dog bite statutory action, applying to an owner of a dog

The good news in these cases is that generally if a dog bites a plaintiff, the plaintiff must only prove these facts:

· The dog bit the plaintiff and the plaintiff was injured as a result;

· The plaintiff did not provoke the bite, typically a fact question for your jury;

· The defendant owned the dog; and

· The plaintiff was lawfully at the location where the dog bite occurred.

2) Common law strict liability action against the dog owner and “keeper”

When the dog bite occurs while the dog is under the control of an owner or a “keeper,” who knew or should have known of the dog’s dangerous propensities, the plaintiff must prove in addition to the facts listed above.

3) Common law negligence

The same facts as listed under number 1 above plus that the owner or “possessor,” or temporary caretaker of the dog had the dog long enough to know of the dog’s dangerous propensities, breached a duty to the plaintiff of controlling the dog, and therefore was negligent.

More good news for Michigan victims related to defense of dog bite cases:

· Provoking the dog, an issue the jury will decide, is the only defense under a statutory claim

· Reacting to a dog’s viciousness does not constitute provocation under the statute.

If you or someone you know has been attcked by a dog, click here for a prior article I authored on how to treat bite injuries.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Timothy Smith

Disbursing Funds under Michigan's Wrongful Death Statute

Timothy Smith — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:01:22 GMT

Recently, we've resolved a number of wrongful death cases here in Northern Michigan. In Michigan, these types of cases are governed by a statute that controls every aspect of the case, including how the recovered funds are distributed to the family members that survive the deceased. One of the families that I represent asked me to explain to them how the distribution of the monies we recovered would take place.

In order to fully answer their question, I turned to Andrew Shotwell, a probate specialist with my office here in Traverse City, Michigan. I asked Andrew to draft an informative letter to the family to answer the question and thought I'd share the substance of it with my readers in case they were facing a similar issue.

The procedure and applicable law depends on various facts. First, if a complaint has been filed in circuit court, the distribution is governed by MCL 600.2922. Essentially under that statute, if no conscience pain and suffering was present or to the extent an award is for other than conscience pain and suffering, the circuit can distribute under 600.2922. The Court approves distributions “to those…who suffered damages and to the estate of the deceased for compensation for conscious pain and suffering, if any, in the amount as the court or jury considers fair and equitable considering the relative damages sustained by each of the persons and the estate of the deceased.”

If there is conscience pain and suffering awarded, the award passes to the estate and is distributed in accordance either with the decedent’s last will and testament, or by intestate succession [this is the law that governs how an individual's estate passes when they have no will]. There is no precise formula for determining the damages for the loss of a loved one’s society and companionship. In re Claim of Carr, 189 Mich App 234, 471 NW2d 637 (1991). The measure of damages is gauged by the relationship the decedent had with the claimant, including the amount of time the decedent and the claimant spent together. McTaggart v Lindsey, 202 Mich App 612, 509 NW2d 881 (1993).

If a complaint has not been filed and settlement has been reached, the distributions occur pursuant to MCL 700.3924, which is similar to 600.2922, requiring the distributions to be fair and equitable. The persons entitled to notice and an opportunity be heard in a wrongful death case under both 700.3924 and 600.2922 are as follows:

1) The deceased's spouse, children, descendants, parents, grandparents, brothers and sisters, and, if none of these persons survive the deceased, then those persons to whom the estate of the deceased would pass under the laws of intestate succession determined as of the date of death of the deceased.

2) The children of the deceased's spouse; and

3) Those persons who are devisees under the will of the deceased, including beneficiaries of a trust under the will, those persons who are designated in the will as persons who may be entitled to damages under this section, and the beneficiaries of a living trust of the deceased if there is a devise to that trust in the will of the deceased.

In any case, an estate would need to be opened with the probate court in the county of residence for the decedent. If a will exists, it is submitted to probate and a Personal Representative appointed, as nominated in the will. If no will exists, or the will fails to nominate a Personal Representative, the Court will appoint one according to the priority schedule, starting with the surviving spouse. Notice is required to be sent to all the people indentified above as having an interest in the distribution.

Once a settlement or an award has been granted, if all of the potential distributees are competent, nondisappeared adults, they may stipulate to a specific distribution scheme. If all of the interested persons stipulate to a proposed allocation, the court must order that distribution. However, if a disagreement exists, a hearing would be required.

If a minor is involved a guardian ad litem may be required to advocate on the minor’s behalf.

If after reading this summary of the approaches to distribution under the wrongful death statute, you still have questions, feel free to shoot me an email or call with further questions.

In my next article, I'll address and give some examples of what happens when the family can't agree on the distribution and an evidentiary hearing is required.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Timothy Smith

Auto Crash Brain Injury Victims Call For Stronger Consumer Protection

Timothy Smith — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:27:09 GMT

Michael Dabbs, president of the Brain Injury Association of Michigan [BIAMI] announced on Monday July 13, 2009 that the BIAMI, insurance industry whistle blowers, medical providers and accident victims have come together to support proposed legislation that will create tougher penalties for insurance companies that deny policy holder's legitimate medical claims.

"In cases of serious auto accidents - and particularly in cases of brain injury - time is of the essence in providing rehabilitative care," said Mike Dabbs, president of the Brain Injury Association of Michigan and spokesperson for CPAN. "Especially in the first year of recovery, every day lost fighting with insurance companies rather than receiving treatment renders the accident victim less able to fully regain the skills affected by their injury."

The proposed legislation is modeled after similar laws in 46 other states and consists of a 12-bill package including House Bills 4844, 4244, 4846, 5020 and House Bills 5144-5151.

"Policyholders faithfully pay premiums so that when they are injured, their insurance company will be there to help," said Dabbs. "Unfortunately, auto insurance companies all too often will delay, deny and defend claims rather than responding with the same good-faith toward their customers."

The timing of this package of bills couldn't be better as our Michigan Appeals Court's have recently issued some of the most anti-consumer rulings in recent memory. In particular - Johnson v. Wausau

The plaintiff in Johnson was a 16 year old girl named Nancy. When she was 10 month's old, she suffered a catastrophic brainy injury in an auto accident. Her guardian/caretaker contacted Nancy's father's auto insurance company who was legally responsible for all of Nancy's medical care and medical services.

Nancy's caretaker was told that the only benefits she was entitled to was $20/day which represented "replacement services" under the No-Fault Statute. In saying this, the adjuster deliberately withheld information regarding "attendant care benefits" under the No-Fault statute. Attendant Care benefits under the No-Fault Statute requires auto insurors to pay caregivers a commercially reasonable hourly rate to provide medical assistance to people that provide medical assistance to the injured after discharge from the hospital.

For example, if someone is so brain injured that they cannot be left alone because their judgment is impaired, then the family has to hire someone to supervise the injured person. Typically this type of care - supervision, home exercise, getting dressed, cooking meals, monitoring medication - is provided by in-home nurses. But, in some cases, families don't want a stranger in their house every day. Sometimes, families want to provide the care themselves. In that case, the law requires the auto insurance company to pay the family a commercially reasonable rate, i.e. the rate that they would have paid the in-home care company.

Unfortunately, the insuror in the Johnson case deliberately withheld this information from the family. In fact, they withheld this information for over 16 years. There were occasions when the family specifically asked Wausau if they were entitled to additional benefits beyond the $20/day and they were told "NO".

Essentially, the insurance company lied to the family to avoid paying money that they legally owed to the family of a 10 month girl who was severely brain injured in an auto accident.

When the family finally consulted with an attorney to confirm whether or not they were entitled to additional/mandatory medical benefits, they found out that they had been lied to for the last 16 years and sued Wausau claiming not only breach of contract but fraud.

Sounds like a slam dunk, right?

Not so fast. Enter the Michigan Court of Appeals. They decided that even though the family had been lied to, even though the insurance company deliberately withheld this critical information from the family, they weren't entitled to any of the past benefits from the prior 16 years.

Why?

The Court's opinion goes something like this -

1. We should all assume our insurance companies will lie to us.

2. When an insurance company lies to us, we do not have the right to bring a lawsuit against them for fraud because we should have known better and sought a second opinion from an attorney who knows what they're doing.

3. If you take what your insurance company tells you at face value, if you believe it to be true [I mean, why would they lie to you? Aren't they there to help?] if you rely on what the insurance company tells you, it's your own damn fault if they hoodwink you.

Wow......... it is amazing the lengths that our Michigan Courts will go to in protecting insurance companies. You would thinking that there should be some law that requires good faith and fair dealing between an insuror and it's insured. [there is]

You would think that there should be some law that recognizes that the insurance companies know more about the insurance laws than their policy holders and that they should not be allowed to take advantage of that knowledge to deny claims. [there is]

The concept espoused by the Courts that "you should have gone to an attorney to see if they were hoodwinking you" is completely and unequivocally wrong.

Families of brain injured children don't have competent No-Fault Insurance attorneys on speed dial so that they can check and double check every statement made to them by their insurance adjusters nor could they afford it.

Why should families have to go hire an attorney to make sure they are not being deceived by their own insurance company. The money spent on an attorney to answer questions that their own insurance company knows the answer to is money that should be spent on the care, rehabilitation and recovery of that child. Period. End of story.

Bravo to Michael Dabbs and all the legislators and supporters of this proposed legislation. If you would like to contact your own state representative to let them know that you support the passage of these bills - bills that will protect children who have suffered a brain injury and their families - click here to contact your senator or representative and let them know how you feel.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Timothy Smith

A Number of Victories for Traumatic Brain Injury Cognitive Rehabilitation Coverage

Timothy Smith — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 13:25:03 GMT

One of the benefits of sitting on the Board of Directors for the Brain Injury Association of Michigan [BIAMI] is that Smith and Johnson will receive weekly updates from the state and national level on issues that affect our traumatically brain injured clients and you our Traverse City InjuryBoard readers.

The Brain Injury Association of America [BIAA] recently reported the following victories on the cognitive rehabilitation front:

1. Anthem Insurance Companies [Anthem BC/BS, Anthem Health Plans] revised it's cognitive rehabilitation coverage policy in December 2008 and cited BIAA's position paper among the authoritative sources that were consulted.

2. United Health Care followed suit by publishing a coverage change in its May 2009 Network Bulletin

3. On June 25th, BIAA sent a letter to President Obama urging TRICARE coverage for service members. This is a follow up to the summit hosted by the Defense Centers of Excellence in April 2009, which was prompted by Congressional inquiries BIAA initiated last summer.

4. On June 26th, BIAA will release an announcement of these developments on PR Newswire and will circulate technical assistance materials to affiliates to maximize this media opportunity. We understand Wall Street Journal Reporter Tom Burton is working on a follow up article to his Jan. 2008 Page 1 story, also instigated by BIAA.

Also, The New England Journal of Medicine will publish a Letter to the Editor submitted jointly by BIAA, the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the National Neurotrauma Society in response to the article, "Care of War Veterans with Mild Traumatic Brain Injury - Flawed Perspectives," by Charles W. Hoge, M.D., Herb M. Goldberg, B.A. and Carl A. Castro, Ph.D dated April 16, 2009. With so many National Guard members returning home here to Northern Michigan, this is a critical piece which will be published in one of the leading medical journals in the world.

Lastly, I'm proud to announce that my daughter Caroline and I will be hosting 2 veterans on a full-day fly fishing trip here in northern Michigan. This trip was arranged through a recent BIAMI fundraiser in southwestern Michigan. I've been a licensed guide for a number of years and Caroline is probably the only high school student in Michigan with her own drift boat. We look forward to providing a great day on the water to two deserving veterans.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Timothy Smith

Timothy Smith elected to the Board of Directors to the Brain Injury Association of Michigan

Timothy Smith — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 13:05:15 GMT

I'm honored to announce that I was elected to the Board of Directors of the Brain Injury Association of Michigan [BIAMI]. This state organization is the Michigan branch of the Brain Injury Association of America.

Founded in 1980, the Brain Injury Association of America (BIAA) is the leading national organization serving and representing individuals, families and professionals who are touched by a life-altering, often devastating, traumatic brain injury (TBI). Together with its network of more than 40 chartered state affiliates, as well as hundreds of local chapters and support groups across the country, the BIAA provides information, education and support to assist the 3.17 million Americans currently living with traumatic brain injury and their families.

This position on the state board will not only allow Smith and Johnson to better represent and serve families who have been confronted with TBI, but also supply you, the readers of InjuryBoard Traverse City timely and important information regarding medical advances in the diagnosing and treatment of closed head injuries, legislative initiatives that seek to protect the rights of those that have been affected by a traumatic brain injury and information relating to the safety of you the consumer and the prevention/avoidance of closed head injuries.

We here at Smith and Johnson look forward to providing you, our readers, with weekly updates from both the state and national Brain Injury Association. Stayed tuned.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Timothy Smith

Unpaid Overtime Hours - a rising trend.

Timothy Smith — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 15:58:07 GMT

As the recession continues, it seems that we're seeing more and more employers getting into trouble by failing to pay overtime. As times get tough for area businesses, cutting overhead by limiting overtime is one way to increase your cash flow. But to force your employees to work for straight pay when overtime pay is owed.... well, that's illegal.

One angle we're seeing is employers who classify an employee as being "exempt" from overtime when in fact, they are "non-exempt" employees. Exempt employee classifications would include executives, administrators, professionals, outside sales persons or independent contractors. These employees are exempt from overtime pay. But, just because an employer calls you an "administrator" doesn't mean you are..... The title may sound nice and even impress your friends, but wouldn't you rather have time and 1/2 if you're working overtime.

We're also seeing area employers forcing employees to work "off the clock". Employees are asked to not record the time they actually worked or to work through their break or meal time. Other violations include:

1. failing to pay overtime for travel from shop to work-site and back,

2. not paying OT for time spent working while traveling,

3. failing to pay OT for attendance at lectures, training and meetings, or

4. failing to pay OT when the employee is required to arrive early to make necessary preparations for work.

Often times, the employee just does what is asked because they are just thankful to have a job and they don't want to rock the boat. There is a fear that if the employment boat is rocked, they might get fired. But the law protects you from that type of retaliatory behavior. It is illegal for employers to retaliate against employees who demand to be paid the OT that they are due.

Lastly, keep an eye out for employers who do any of the following:

1. deny OT pay because they say you didn't get permission or approval in advance,

2. incorrectly calculate OT pay by carrying one week's OT hours over into another week, or

3. grant employees time off in lieu of overtime pay.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Timothy Smith

Slip and Falls on Black Ice in Michigan

Timothy Smith — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 10:27:57 GMT

Businesses bombard us with promises of a shopping experience loaded with deals, specials and savings. Whether it's Wal-Mart, Best Buy, or the local Five and Dime, you would think, as consumers, that the same businesses that have invited us to their premise for deals galore would also make sure that they were providing us with a safe shopping experience.

Here at Smith & Johnson, we have represented individuals who have been trampled at Sam's Club in the early morning when the doors opened for a big sale. We have represented shoppers who have had merchandise fall on them from over-stacked shelves many feet above their head. We have also represented folks who have slipped and fell on floors that weren't properly maintained by the store owners.

But, over the last 15 years or so, your rights as a shopper to a safe shopping experience have slowly been eroded by Michigan's Court of Appeals and Supreme Court. Supreme Court Justices Young, Corrigan and Markman have gone out of their way to make sure that store owners in this day and age are required to do very little to provide a safe shopping experience for the people they invited to their store. You'd think things like shoveling snow out of the entry way, salting an icy sidewalk in front of the store, or repairing cracks in the tile of their aisle ways that might trip up a shopper - you'd think these would been maintained as a matter of courtesy, if not common sense.

But, our Supreme and Appeals courts have found that nearly every condition created by a store owner is "open and obvious" and it's the shopper's own damn fault for getting injured. These courts have even held that a blind man who slipped and fell in the bathroom of a fast food restaurant should have seen the puddle of water even though the restaurant failed to properly maintain and keep clean it's bathroom!

This sets the stage for slip and fall cases that involve black ice. If you live in Michigan, you know that black ice is that thin sheet of ice that forms over the top of a floor or roadway and is basically invisible to the naked eye. In fact, according to Benzie County Circuit Court Judge James M. Batzer,

"It seems to me that what sets so-called black ice apart in it's capacity to be treacherous is that it's not visible".

Accordingly, how can it be "open and obvious" if you can't see it?

This question was answered for us by the Michigan Court of Appeals on November 6, 2008. The opinion was authored by Judge Jane M. Beckering, a recent appointee to the Appellate bench, who has been an amazing breath of fresh air and common sense to the Michigan court of Appeals. The case is entitled Slaughter v. Blarney Castle and it involves a patron of that gas station who slipped and was injured when she fell on black ice in their parking lot.

Prior opinions from the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals have held that snow is open and obvious, slush is open and obvious, and snow covered ice is open and obvious. What these prior courts have said is that Michigan residents should understand that when it's winter, everyone should know to watch their step or they're going to get hurt. The problem with this is that store owners now have no duty to shovel their walks, salt their steps or take any action to ensure that their shoppers have a safe experience.

In the Slaughter case, Judges Beckering, Borello and Davis addressed the issue of whether black ice, that isn't covered by snow is open and obvious. They held it wasn't.

Finally, a decision that is based on good old common sense. Judge Beckering held that every case that involves a store owners failure to salt or maintain which leads to a fall on black ice should be analyzed on it's own facts. She held that the "open and obvious" doctrine shouldn't bar black ice claims unless it can be shown that "an average person of reasonable intelligence would have been able to discover the danger and risk upon casual inspection".

That makes sense because black ice, by it's own definition, can't be seen. Judge Beckering wrote:

The overriding principle behind the many definitions of black ice is that it is either invisible or nearly invisible, transparent, or nearly transparent. Such definition is inherently inconsistent with the open and obvious doctrine. Consequently, we decline to extend the doctrine to black ice without evidence that the black ice in question would have been visible on casual inspection prior to the fall or other indicia of a potentially hazardous condition.

Now, thanks to the common sense of Judges Beckering, Borello and Davis, store owners will at least be required to salt and maintain their premises to protect invitees from black ice, even if the law allows them to let snow and slush pile up around their store.

The moral of this legal story is to keep your eyes peeled when you are out shopping. The store owners need to do little to protect you from the dangerous conditions that may be surrounding or within their premise. According to Michigan courts, unless it's black ice, you are on your own......

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Timothy Smith

Teen Driving Tips

Timothy Smith — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 17:04:35 GMT

I've got one and two more on the way. Teens that is.......

Next summer my oldest will take driver's education. It's a little scary. I saw an interesting statistic recently that really opened my eyes to what I'm getting myself into. Evidently, your average 16 year old soccer player has 1,500 hours of instruction in soccer by the time they reach that age. But, we're handing these same kids drivers licenses and unleashing them on the road with only 50-100 hours of instruction.

This is disconcerting for a number of reasons:

1. In 2006, drivers age 15-17 were involved in approximately 974,000 accidents that injured 406,427 people and killed 2,541.

2. Auto accidents are the leading cause of death among U.S. teenagers as it accounts for 36% of all deaths in that age group according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

3. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has claimed that the 16-19 year old age bracket has a greater risk of an accident than any other age group.

4. The risk of an auto accident for a 16 year old is double that of a 18 or 19 year old.

5. This rate of injury for 16 years old increases every time another passenger is placed in the vehicle.

6. Lastly, 33% of teenage drivers are involved in a car crash in their first year of driving and somewhere in the United States, a teenage driver is killed every 6.5 minutes and injured every 55 seconds according to teensafety.com.

So what's a parent to do?

More instruction is one thing. Some options would include:

1. The Mid-Ohio School in Lexington KY which offers a Honda Ten Defensive Driving Program and teaches the dynamics of driving including wet braking techniques, emergency lane change maneuvers, and a skid drill that simulates driving on ice, snow and rain.

2. Tire Rack's Street Survival Program will be held in 50 cities across the country through November 15th. It costs $60 and is open to permitted and licensed drivers between the ages of 16-21.

3. Driver's Edge - another touring school which is free and blends classroom and on course driving experience with a focus on real life emergency situation. It was founded by former race driver Jeff Payne.

Another helpful tool to reduce the risk to your teenager is a Graduated Drivers License program. All states have it to some degree, but perhaps your own family implementing one might help even more.

There should be a period where they can only drive under the direct supervision [in the car] of an adult. Then, once you're comfortable [and the State you live in allows it] allow the teen an intermediate period where they can drive alone under limited circumstances such as during daylight hours and with no passengers. Lastly, when you as the parent are comfortable with your teens skills and maturity behind the wheel, full privileges.

I think the bottom line for parents is you have to be involved. You can't rely on some course by the State and a few hours behind the wheel to properly prepare your teens for the dangers of driving a vehicle. Know where and when your teens are driving. Get involved. It may be the difference in whether or not your teen sees their 20th birthday.

If any readers have other good ideas for parents, I'd love to hear them.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Timothy Smith

Stork Craft Baby Cribs Recalled

Timothy Smith — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 16:33:49 GMT

Stork Craft Manufacturing of British Columbia, Canada has recalled 1,000,000 cribs that had been sold between May 2000 and last month here in the U.S. and Canada. The Consumer Public Safety commission has reported 10 incidents were mattress support brackets have detached which created a danger of trapping and or suffocation for the infant.

If you are using a Stork Craft crib in your home, please stop immediately as they can be very dangerous.

Contact Stork Craft toll-free at (866) 361-3321 anytime to order the free replacement kit .

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Timothy Smith

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act: timely help for employees

Timothy Smith — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 11:28:54 GMT

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act have reached critical mass in Congress and looks to become law under our next administration. So, what are they and how does this affect you?

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was named after a female employee at Goodyear Tire named, Lilly Ledbetter. She had worked for Goodyear for nearly 18 years when she found out that men at the company, who did the exact same job, were being paid more money for the same work.

Well that doesn't seem fair?

Lilly didn’t think so either, so after talking with her bosses failed, she filed suit in 1998 alleging discrimination in pay based on gender which was prohibited by the 1964 Civil Rights Act. She alleged that Goodyear, as far back as 1992, was paying her less than men and it was discriminatory.

Goodyear argued that the 1964 Civil Rights Act required a claimant to file their claim within 180 days of the alleged discriminatory act and that if it occurred first in 1992, she was too late. Since she filed in 1998, Goodyear asked the court to throw her case out.

Lilly responded with common sense…… How was it possible to file in 1992 when she didn’t find out that her employer was discriminating against her till 1998?

The case wound it’s way up to the highest court of the nation, the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in 2007, interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to hold that Lilly had 180 days, whether she knew about the discrimination or not. Our congress took immediate action to correct what they felt was a legislative error in the original act.

Congress felt that each and every time an employer discriminates against an employee by paying them less due to gender, that this was discrimination and a violation of the act. Accordingly, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act will restore the long standing rule that each and every discriminatory paycheck is a violation. This means that employees won’t be punished when their employer hides the discriminatory activity from them for more than 180 days which, under the old rule, would insulate them from any claim.

The Paycheck Fairness Act is another act that will level the playing field between employees and employers. This act will amend the 1963 Equal Pay Act and strengthen current laws prohibiting wage discrimination. It will also require that the federal government become more pro-active in identifying and prohibiting wage discrimination.

Once enacted, the Paycheck Fairness Act will strengthen the 1963 Equal Pay Act in the following manner:

1. It will strengthen the remedy provisions of the act to provide greater punishments for those employers that discriminate.
2. It will mandate that the EEOC survey available pay data and issue regulations which will increase their ability to discover violations of the law and improve their ability to enforce the laws.
3. It will bar employers from retaliating against employees who share wage information with fellow workers. Some companies actually do this! How else will an employee know if they are being discriminated against if they can’t ask a co-worker, “How much you getting for this job?”
4. The Act will mandate collection of gender-based information in the Current Employment Statistics survey and will standardize an analysis of systematic wage discrimination which will become an important tool for detecting violations in gender based wage discrimination.

As our economy continues to suffer, we are seeing more and more employers cutting costs at the expense of it’s employees. These two important bills, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the the Paycheck Fairness Act, will give employees the tools they need to identify discrimination when it’s occurring and give them the opportunity to take corrective action against their employers.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Timothy Smith