Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, EMPLOYEE LEAVE—E.D. Mich.: Auto worker’s COVID-related lawsuit tossed by Michigan federal court, (Jun 13, 2025)

By Ursula Furi-Perry, J.D., MBA

The plaintiff failed to show she was entitled to protections, nor did she establish a causal connection between any protected activity and alleged adverse actions.

A former employee of an automobile manufacturing plant in Detroit who sued her employer under the Michigan COVID-19 Employment Rights Act (CERA) failed to show she was entitled to protections, nor did she establish a causal connection between any protected activity and alleged adverse actions, a federal district court found. Many of her allegations were unsupported, vague, or contradicted by her deposition, the court noted, declining to speculate or infer causation without specific facts (Shannon v. Flex N Gate Detroit, LLC, No. 23-12473 (E.D. Mich. Jun. 9, 2025)).

Auto manufacturing. The plaintiff worked for the defendant’s automobile manufacturing plant in Detroit. She was temporarily laid off at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, along with the other hourly production employees, then called back to work a couple of months later. On her first day back, the plaintiff was told by a nurse to go home and quarantine for 14 days, but then was informed by email that she must get tested for COVID-19 if she experiences COVID-19 symptoms and must return to work if she tests negative. She tested negative and wanted to continue quarantining but returned to work after being told to do so.

NLRB complaint. In July 2020, the plaintiff filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) alleging that she was “harassed and retaliated against because I gave this information to other employees that they were trying to fire for points accumulated being out on COVID-19 quarantine.” Her complaint was dismissed.

Exposed to COVID. In October, she received a call from the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS), informing her that she was exposed to COVID-19 at work two weeks earlier and should get tested, followed by a letter from MDHSS. The plaintiff went to work and showed the letter to a supervisor, asking why the employer had not informed her that “COVID is in the plant.” The supervisor replied that “he thought the company was doing a fine job,” and the plaintiff was allowed to take vacation time to get tested.

Verbal warning. In November 2020, the plaintiff was given a verbal warning for “grandstanding.” She maintained this was a result of her COVID-19 activities, but the employer stated it was because the plaintiff was “interrupting production.... [I]t was related to her claims that there was a collective bargaining agreement already signed at the time with the union that the company was refusing to provide to employees which was untrue.”

Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a whistleblower complaint with the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration (MIOSHA), which conducted an inspection of the plant. MIOSHA issued a citation against the employer on June 15, 2021, for alleged violations of the “COVID Emergency Rules.”

Called “bitch.” In November 2021, the plaintiff returned to work, where a male employee allegedly called her a “bitch.” She submitted an incident report to HR but did not identify the employee who allegedly harassed her. The plaintiff never returned to work after that incident, going on leave until she was terminated on January 18, 2022.

Termination. The employer provided the reason for termination as FMLA leave “was exhausted in early December” and she had not “provided any documentation supporting your continued absence from work, followed up... to address any questions regarding your leave, or otherwise communicated any reason for your continued failure to provide the requested documentation.”

The plaintiff expressed that she did not return to work “because she feared for her safety and her life.” She also alleged various facts that were not linked to any time or date, including: that “she was moved from her regular machine and placed on a machine she was not familiar with in another department;” that “the whole door line was sent home to quarantine after a severe COVID-19 outbreak;” and that her complaints about the women’s restroom being dirty were not addressed.

Lawsuit. The plaintiff filed suit in a Michigan state court, alleging violations of CERA. The employer removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division and filed a motion for summary judgment.

Compliance with quarantine requirements. CERA prohibits retaliation against employees who comply with quarantine requirements. In May 2020, the plaintiff reported a runny nose and sinus issues and was sent home, tested negative, and was instructed to return. The court held this was not protected conduct under CERA, as her symptoms did not qualify as “principal symptoms” of COVID-19 under the statutory definition. Moreover, in October 2020, when the plaintiff experienced diarrhea and was informed of a prior exposure, the court found that diarrhea alone does not qualify as a “principal symptom” unless accompanied by another listed symptom. Additionally, 14 days had passed since exposure, and she was permitted to test and return, so no violation occurred. The plaintiff failed to show any instance where she was denied her rights under CERA’s quarantine provisions, the court held.

Opposition to violations and reporting health violations. CERA also prohibits retaliation for opposing violations or reporting health-related violations. The court evaluated several retaliatory actions that were alleged by the plaintiff. First, she claimed she was constructively discharged. However, the court noted she was formally terminated, not forced to resign, so the constructive discharge claim failed as a matter of law.

Regarding the verbal warning for “grandstanding,” the court held that the warning itself was not considered a materially adverse employment action, as it did not result in a loss of pay, benefits, or significant change in job conditions. The court found no actionable harm tied to this warning. While the plaintiff alleged she was moved to unfamiliar machines, the court found no evidence of causal connection between her COVID-related complaints and these job changes. The transfers were vague in timing and lacked attribution to a supervisor with known knowledge of her protected activity.

The plaintiff also claimed she was scrutinized by supervisors after speaking out, but the court found no evidence that this scrutiny impacted terms or conditions of employment, nor was there evidence of causation. The court rejected the plaintiff’s claim that she was deliberately denied parts, as it was contradicted by her deposition testimony, where she identified only one team lead responsible and admitted others also received defective parts. The related affidavit paragraph was stricken as contradictory, leaving no support for this allegation. The court also discredited the plaintiff’s allegations that a supervisor threatened to fire her for mentioning COVID, finding it too vague and not tied to a specific report or protected act. No evidence was presented that this threat followed or was caused by a protected report of an actual health violation under CERA.

Ultimately, the court granted summary judgment, holding that the plaintiff failed to show she was entitled to protections, nor did she establish a causal connection between any protected activity and alleged adverse actions. Many of her allegations were unsupported, vague, or contradicted by her deposition, the court noted, declining to speculate or infer causation without specific facts.

The case is No. 23-12473.

Judge: Levy, J.

Attorneys: Jerome D. Goldberg (Law Offices of Jerome D. Goldberg) for Jennette Shannon. Elizabeth L. Bolduc (Eastman & Smith) for Flex N. Gate Detroit, LLC.

Companies: Flex N. Gate Detroit, LLC

Cases: EmployeeLeave Discharge Covid19 MichiganNews