A note before you read this page: past results do not guarantee or predict future outcomes. Every case is different. The fact patterns below are representative of the kinds of cases I handle and the legal theories that typically apply — they are not promises about what may happen in your case. The outcome of your case depends on its specific facts, the evidence we can develop, the law in your jurisdiction, and many factors outside any attorney’s control.
With that said: here’s what the work looks like.
Wrongful termination, discrimination, and retaliation
The FMLA retaliation pattern
An employee takes — or requests — FMLA leave for a serious medical condition, pregnancy, or a family member’s illness. The employer grants the leave, sometimes reluctantly. Within weeks of returning from leave (or, in some cases, during leave), the employee is terminated or demoted, often framed as a performance issue that wasn’t documented before the leave request.
Typical legal theories: FMLA retaliation under 29 U.S.C. § 2615; FMLA interference; often accompanied by parallel ADA retaliation claims when the underlying condition also qualifies as a disability.
What wins these cases: The close temporal proximity between the protected FMLA activity and the adverse action; pre-leave performance reviews that contradict the employer’s stated termination rationale; documentation (employee’s own leave request and the employer’s response) establishing employer awareness.
The pregnancy discrimination pattern
An employee announces her pregnancy or returns from maternity leave, and her employer’s behavior shifts. Performance reviews that had been positive turn critical. Schedules change. Job duties shift without consultation. Within a close time window, she’s terminated, demoted, or pushed out.
Typical legal theories: Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA); Title VII sex discrimination; Michigan Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA); sometimes accompanied by ADA claims when pregnancy-related medical conditions qualify.
What wins these cases: Comparator evidence showing non-pregnant employees were treated differently; documentation of the pregnancy disclosure and the employer’s response; a tight timeline between announcement (or return from leave) and the adverse action.
The ADA accommodation denial pattern
An employee with a disability or a serious medical condition requests a reasonable accommodation — modified schedule, leave, equipment, remote work. The employer either denies the request outright, demands excessive medical documentation to stall, or refuses to engage in the interactive process. The employee is often terminated for a pretextual reason during or shortly after the request.
Typical legal theories: ADA failure-to-accommodate; ADA retaliation; Michigan Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act (PDCRA); often parallel FMLA claims when the condition qualifies as a “serious health condition.”
What wins these cases: Documentation of the accommodation request and the employer’s response (or non-response); evidence of the employer’s failure to engage in the interactive process; medical records supporting the disability and the requested accommodation.
The complaint-then-retaliation pattern (race, gender, harassment)
An employee experiences discrimination or harassment — race-based, sex-based, harassment of any form — and reports it in writing to HR, a supervisor, or an ethics hotline. The harassment either continues or escalates. Within a close time window, the employee is terminated, demoted, or pushed out for some pretextual reason.
Typical legal theories: Title VII retaliation; 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (for race cases); Michigan ELCRA retaliation; underlying discrimination or hostile work environment claims.
What wins these cases: The written complaint itself; employer awareness of the complaint; shifting or weak rationales for the termination; comparator evidence showing employees who didn’t complain weren’t treated the same way; pre-complaint performance record inconsistent with the termination.
The whistleblower retaliation pattern
An employee reports illegal conduct — financial fraud, safety violations, regulatory violations, Medicare fraud, securities violations — either internally or to a government agency. Within days, weeks, or a few months, the employee is terminated, demoted, or pushed out.
Typical legal theories: Michigan Whistleblowers’ Protection Act; False Claims Act retaliation (31 U.S.C. § 3730(h)); Sarbanes-Oxley § 806 (for public-company employees); OSHA Section 11(c); Dodd-Frank; industry-specific statutes.
What wins these cases: Documentation of the report itself (email, filing, witness statements); employer awareness of the report; a tight causation timeline; pretext evidence that the stated termination reason is weak or shifting.
The age discrimination / RIF pattern
An employee over 40 with a long track record is suddenly put on a performance improvement plan for issues that weren’t raised before, or is included in a reduction in force that disproportionately affects older workers. The employee is replaced by someone significantly younger, or the RIF selection criteria don’t hold up under scrutiny.
Typical legal theories: Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA); Michigan ELCRA age discrimination; disparate impact under Smith v. City of Jackson; Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA) for invalid severance waivers.
What wins these cases: Age-coded comments from decisionmakers; pre-PIP performance history; the age gap between the employee and the replacement (or between older and younger laid-off employees in a RIF); statistical analysis of RIF selections.
Non-compete defense
The cease-and-desist / injunction defense pattern
A former employer serves a cease-and-desist letter or files a lawsuit seeking to enforce a non-compete, non-solicitation, or non-disclosure agreement. The agreement may be overbroad, unsupported by a reasonable competitive business interest, or unenforceable for one of many reasons under Michigan’s Antitrust Reform Act (MCL 445.774a).
Typical legal theories (defensive): Unenforceability under MARA factors; overbreadth; lack of reasonable competitive business interest; unclean hands; lack of actual competition; waiver.
Typical legal theories (offensive counterclaims): Tortious interference with current employment; wrongful termination; wage and hour violations; retaliation for protected activity; breach of the former employer’s own contract with the employee.
What wins these cases: Careful contract analysis identifying enforceability defects; strategic response to C&D letters that signals willingness to litigate; rapid mobilization for preliminary injunction hearings (which function as mini-trials on compressed timelines); development of counterclaims that change the economics of the dispute.
The “lawsuit filed, then dropped” pattern
A former employer sues to enforce a non-compete agreement. After my notice of appearance, the employer reassesses the cost and likelihood of success and voluntarily dismisses or walks away from enforcement without a settlement payment from the employee.
What wins these cases: Credible signals that the employee is prepared to defend aggressively; identification of counterclaim exposure that changes the employer’s calculus; early discovery requests and motion practice that reveal the weakness of the employer’s case.
How I evaluate whether your case fits these patterns
If you’ve read this far, you’re probably comparing your own situation to the patterns above. That comparison is worth doing — but the specifics matter. Two fact patterns that look similar on paper can lead to very different cases based on evidence, timing, and documentation.
A free consultation is the right next step. I’ll ask the questions that surface whether your situation maps to a pattern I can win, and I’ll tell you what I think honestly.
Schedule a Free Case Evaluation →
Or call 814-821-1140 directly.
Astbury Law, PLLC 607 Shelby Street, 7th Floor, #1115 Detroit, MI 48226 814-821-1140 · warren@astburylaw.com
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. The information on this page is for general educational purposes and is not legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is created by reading this page or submitting a form.