QUESTIONS PRESENTED
I. [Insert question about substantially equivalent positions here] Under the Michigan Application Title VII, did Linda Fry substantially equivalent when found a position on housekeeping?
II. [Insert question about reasonable diligence here] Under the Michigan Application Title VII, did Linda Fry show reasonable diligence when she applied for the number of jobs, one in Michigan and one in Colorado? Yes, it did. Michigan alone requires a 3-hour drive from her home. In Colorado, PF stayed for three weeks to look for receptionist posts.
BRIEF ANSWERS
I. [Insert answer about substantially equivalent positions here] Under the Michigan Title VII, a position on housekeeping, even if supervisorial, cannot satisfy the requirements of substantially equivalent to the position of receptionist.
II. [Insert answer about reasonable diligence here] Under the Michigan Title VII, plaintiff Fry satisfied the requirements of reasonable diligence in mitigating damages with her multiple application activities whether in Michigan or in Colorado.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Plaintiff Fry worked at Redemption Lodge since April 2003 as a receptionist, which involved answering phones, handle bookings, among others. After her termination in July 2014, she had sent some 10 applications from Craiglist job openings, interviewed with JW Marriott Hotel Grand Rapids and Grand Rapids Hampton In and Suites and in Muskegon and Holland, received an interview invitation from Detroit MGM, and also taught Latin at a Grand Rapids school. She even stayed with a friend in Denver for three weeks to seek for a job there, but received no invitation for an interview.
DISCUSSION
I. Plaintiff Fry satisfied the legal requirements for substantially equivalent position
[Rule statement] Title VII (a) does not require the claimant to look for any job substantially equivalent to any job previously held, which in this cases was that in the housekeeping department or teaching Latin language in school; and (b) only requires that the equivalent position available to be “virtually identical promotional opportunities, compensation, job responsibilities, working conditions, and status.”
[Rule Explanation] In Rasimas v MDMH (1983) the court held that substantially equivalent position must have “virtually identical promotional opportunities, compensation, job responsibilities, working conditions, and status.” It is consistent with the rulings in Ford that the claimant “need not go into another line of work, accept a demotion, or take a demeaning position” and, in so doing, refused a substantially equivalent job.
[Application applying the rule to facts, giving first winning and then losing side] The plaintiff applied to around ten receptionist jobs in Craiglist for two months and many other receptionist jobs within and outside Michigan. She rejected receptionist jobs offers due to multiple night shifts and long drives from her home. She also declined offers that were not substantially equivalent to her receptionist position, such as housekeeping. On the other hand, the defendant argued that Fry failed in her duty to mitigate damages without specifying how she failed to do so, refusing to provide the plaintiff with back pay. The certain facts in Rasimas (PF) is unlike the facts in current case (CF) because plaintiff Fry diligently sought employment in Grand Rapids, within Michigan, and outside of Michigan on are all substantially equivalent jobs (E). Therefore its ruling (PH) will not be the same in Rasimas (CH). However, both Rasimas and Fry refused offers that are not substantially equivalent to the unlawfully dismissed position. Conversely, the facts in Ford (PF) is similar to the facts in the current case (CF) because both claimants refused to offer substantially equivalent posts (E). Thus, its ruling (PH) will be similar in facts (CH). However, Fry had valid basis for her refusal of the offer unlike Ford.
[Repeat Conclusion] Plaintiff Fry satisfied the legal requirements for substantially equivalent positions.
II. Plaintiff Fry satisfied the requirements for reasonable diligence in mitigating damages with her efforts to submit job applications in Grand Rapids, within Michigan, and outside Michigan State.
[Rule Explanation] Plaintiff Fry sent applications for substantially equivalent positions for a receptionist job through Craiglist (10 applications), to hotels in Grand Rapids (e.g. JW Marriott Hotel Grand Rapids and Grand Rapids Hampton Inn and Suites), within the Michigan State (e.g. Detroit MGM and other hotels in Muskegon and Holland), and outside Michigan State (e.g. Denver). Subsequently, the court held that success in her mitigation effort is not required as well heroic efforts in such attempt. In Rasimas v MDMH (1983), Rasimas rejected at least two offers for substantially equivalent positions as MDMH claimed, including that of a recreation aide position but without informing Rasimas on his right of first refusal. However, the court disagreed. Conversely, though, in Ford v Nicks (1989), Ford had conducted a nationwide job search, sending applications to far-flung institutions and indicating her willingness to relocate, but turned down an offer from TTU for a substantially equivalent teaching position on the basis of driving long distances. The court ruled that she failed to exercise reasonable diligence.
[Application applying the rule to facts, giving first winning and then losing side] Plaintiff Fry satisfied the requirements for reasonable diligence in mitigating damages. She showed willingness to work in Grand Rapids (e.g. JW Marriott Hotel Grand Rapids and Grand Rapids Hampton Inn and Suites), within the Michigan State (e.g. Detroit MGM and other hotels in Muskegon and Holland), and outside Michigan State (e.g. Denver). She turned down the offer from JW Marriott Hotel Grand Rapids because she could not sustain working on night shifts 13 days each month (she took occasional nightshifts on weekends only at Redemption Lodge). She also turned down an interview from Detroit MGM because it took her three-hour drives from her home. She could not relocate because of the dire peace and order situation in the city. She planned to relocate to Denver. However, she failed to get a job there. All these indicate reasonable diligence in mitigating her unemployment after she was unlawfully dismissed, similar to Rasimas case and unlike the Ford case.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff Fry satisfied the requirements of substantial equivalent position when applying for at least one substantially equivalent position of receptionist when she applied for receptionist jobs through Craiglist, in hotels and resorts within and outside the Michigan State. Under Title VII, plaintiff Fry is (a) not required to be successful in her mitigation efforts and (b) not required to take heroic efforts in attempting to mitigate damages. Therefore, plaintiff Fry satisfied the requirements for substantially equivalent job positions and reasonable diligence in mitigating damages. She is expected to win the claim suit. Thus, it is suggested that the attorney, in behalf of plaintiff Fry, proceed in filing a claim for back wages against Redemption Lodge.
